propose_task_create

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical behavioral context: the tool does not create anything; it only stages and returns a token, requiring a second step. This is beyond what annotations convey.

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 that are front-loaded with purpose and immediate behavioral constraint. Every word adds value; no redundancy or waste.

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 part of a two-step approval workflow, the description explains the flow and return token. However, the lack of parameter documentation reduces completeness for proper invocation. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning, but it provides no details about title, column_id, assigned, description, or extra_fields. The agent receives no guidance on parameter usage.

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 tool stages task creation and returns an approval token, distinct from actual creation. It explicitly says 'Does NOT create anything', which separates it from sibling propose_task_update and apply_approved_action.

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: show preview to user, get token, then use apply_approved_action upon approval. It implies a two-step workflow but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over propose_task_update or other tools.

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