add_task

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses multiple non-obvious behaviors: priority range, size enums, date format, project auto-creation, nesting limit, and the guess_dates default behavior. This goes well beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 concise despite covering many parameters. Each sentence provides valuable information, with code-formatted value examples for quick scanning. It is appropriately structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity of 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers important side effects and defaults. It does not detail the behavior of labels, description, or scheduled_date, but these are straightforward optional fields. The description adequately addresses the tool's main behaviors and edge cases like guess_dates and project creation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantics for priority, size, date formats, project auto-creation, parent_id nesting, and guess_dates. However, it does not explain labels, description, or scheduled_date beyond their schema names, leaving some parameters less clear. Still, the major fields are well covered.

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 starts with 'Create a task,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like edit_task, list_tasks, and get_task, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 context for usage by explaining parameter behaviors such as project auto-creation and nesting limits. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, the creation focus is obvious and the details on defaults and constraints offer practical usage guidance.

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