create_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that column_id defaults to the board's first column, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond creation. This is a moderate amount of transparency for a create operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description begins with a single clear purpose sentence followed by a compact, well-formatted parameter list. Every line provides necessary information with no fluff or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All 6 parameters are described with semantics, including optionality and defaults. Required parameters (title, board_id) are evident from the context and schema. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be explained in the description. The tool is fully specified for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in plain language: 'Card title', 'Board to create the card on', 'Column to create it in (optional; defaults to the board's first column)', etc. This adds meaning well beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Create a new Kaiten task (card) on a given board', which clearly specifies the verb (create), resource (Kaiten task/card), and scope (on a given board). This distinguishes it from siblings like move_task, set_responsible, and add_comment, which perform different operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating 'Create a new Kaiten task', but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., move_task for moving existing cards). It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, so the agent must infer suitability from the purpose alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.