create_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavior: tasks 'start in status pending'. It also implies a workflow where implementers pick up tasks. However, it doesn't mention whether permissions are needed, whether the task is immediately visible, or what the response is. This is minimal but acceptable for a straightforward creation tool.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and target, the second adds a key state detail. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a creation operation. It sets the task status and the intended actor, which addresses workflow context. It doesn't explain return values, but that is often implicit for create actions. A bit more detail on how creation fits the overall task lifecycle (e.g., 'assignee' pre-claiming) would make it fully complete, but it's above minimum viable.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details—it doesn't elaborate on 'assignee', 'priority', or 'expected_output'. The phrase 'for an implementer to pick up' hints at assignee/claiming but not explicitly. Satisfies the baseline without exceeding it.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a new coordination task'. It also specifies the target audience ('for an implementer (e.g. OpenCode) to pick up') and initial status, which differentiates this creation tool from sibling tools like list_tasks or claim_task.

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: use this tool to create tasks for implementers to pick up. Though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the purpose is unmistakable compared to siblings. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but that is not critical for a creation tool with obvious intent.

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