task_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It successfully clarifies the standalone nature of the created task (distinguishing from process-bound tasks), but lacks disclosure of side effects, idempotency, error conditions (e.g., invalid assignee), or return values.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. The first sentence establishes the core action and scope, the second provides usage context, and the third lists required inputs. Perfectly front-loaded with the most critical information first.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the empty input schema, the description leaves gaps regarding return values (e.g., task ID), error handling, and field validation rules. Adequate for basic identification but insufficient for robust agent operation without additional discovery.

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 is empty (0 parameters), which triggers the baseline 4 rule. The description compensates by explicitly listing four expected parameters (name, assignee, priority, due date) that the schema omits. While it doesn't describe data types or formats, it provides critical param names necessary for invocation.

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 clearly states the action ('Create'), resource ('standalone user task'), and key scope constraint ('not attached to a process instance'). This effectively distinguishes the tool from process-bound task creation (e.g., via processInstance_start) and other task management siblings.

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 provides clear contextual guidance by specifying 'ad-hoc work items' and contrasting with process-attached tasks. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the 'standalone' and 'not attached' phrasing implicitly signals when to use this versus process-instance workflows.

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