asana_create_subtask

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it communicates. Every word earns its place without being overly terse.

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?

For a creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a successful creation returns, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether subtasks inherit properties from parent tasks. The high parameter count and mutation nature demand more contextual information than provided.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. However, it does imply the existence of a parent-child relationship through 'subtask for an existing task,' which contextualizes the 'parent_task_id' parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('new subtask for an existing task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from general task creation tools like 'asana_create_task' by specifying it's for subtasks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools beyond this inherent differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing parent task), compare it to 'asana_create_task' for regular tasks, or indicate when subtasks are appropriate versus dependencies or other task relationships available in sibling tools.

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