create_task

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds context about subtask and sibling semantics, which goes beyond the schema, but it does not disclose return value, side effects, or potential constraints (e.g., parent_task_id must belong to the same list). This is modest additional transparency.

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 is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and then adds the optional placement behavior. It contains zero filler and is efficiently structured.

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?

The description is minimal: it covers placement but omits return value (no output schema present) and does not mention relationships between parent_task_id/previous_task_id and task_list_id. While the schema covers required fields, an agent might need more guidance on expected behavior or error cases. For a relatively simple create operation, the description is adequate but not rich.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description compensates for the two most ambiguous parameters: parent_task_id is explained as creating a subtask, and previous_task_id as placing after a sibling. Other parameters are either self-explanatory or documented in the schema (due, task_list_id). This adds meaningful clarity.

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') and resource ('a task'), and adds placement options ('as a subtask or after a sibling') that distinguish it from other create/update tools in the sibling list. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 for creating tasks and mentions optional subtask/sibling placement, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_task_list or update_task. An agent can infer when to use it, but the description provides no explicit when-not or alternative routing.

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