create_system_tasks

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the bare fact of running a task—no mention of side effects, background processing, latency, or what the response represents. With annotations present, the description fails to add meaningful behavioral detail.

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 brief and not verbose, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It front-loads 'Run task,' which essentially restates the tool name, and follows with the endpoint and an Args list. The structure is plain and lacks formatting like headings, but it does not waste words. The brevity comes at the cost of essential detail.

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 is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is still inadequate. It doesn't explain what a system task is, when to run one, what the output indicates, or how this tool fits into the broader system. An agent would lack enough context to decide when to invoke this tool or interpret the result.

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 description includes an Args section that explains taskid as 'Task id of the task to run,' which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description is the only source of parameter semantics. However, it doesn't specify the format of the id, where to obtain it, or any constraints, making it minimal but not fully helpful.

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 says 'Run task.' which is a verb and a resource but extremely vague. It does not specify what a system task is, what 'running' entails, or how it differs from sibling tools like create_system_jobs. The endpoint POST /api/system/tasks is mentioned but doesn't clarify the tool's purpose. The description doesn't distinguish this tool from other create_* tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states 'Run task' with no context about prerequisites, scenarios where it is appropriate, or when to prefer another tool. The description is entirely silent on usage context.

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