Creates a new engineering task with dependencies and optional observable contract specification to enable reproducible verification.
Creates a new engineering task with dependencies and optional observable contract specification
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Task title | |
| moduleId | No | ||
| priority | No | MEDIUM | |
| projectId | Yes | ID of the project | |
| description | Yes | Detailed task description | |
| contractSpec | No | ||
| dependencies | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals nothing about persistence, required fields, side effects, validation of dependencies, or permissions for a mutation tool in a multi-agent workflow.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is a virtue structurally, though it comes at the cost of completeness.
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 no annotations, no output schema, a nested contractSpec object, and only 43% schema coverage, the description is far too thin for an agent to call this tool correctly without guessing at required inputs and contract semantics.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 43% across 7 parameters including a nested contractSpec object. The description names 'dependencies' and 'contractSpec' but adds no semantics for the required fields, the priority enum, defaults, or the evidence-type options, so it barely compensates for the schema gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new engineering task') and names two notable capabilities (dependencies, optional observable contract specification). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like task_claim or task_next.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for alternative task operations. The agent is left to infer that this is the creation entry point in the task lifecycle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.