Create tasks

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

The description discloses that the tool can create multiple tasks at once ('one or more') and lists typical fields, which adds context beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain permissions, validation behavior, or the response format. The openWorldHint annotation hints at an open schema, but the description does not elaborate on the consequences of using unlisted fields.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and then enumerates typical fields. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it an efficient communication of the tool's core function.

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?

Despite the tool being relatively simple (one array parameter), the description leaves important gaps. It does not specify the return value of the create operation (no output schema exists), nor does it clarify required fields or how errors are reported. Given the openWorldHint and the lack of structured property descriptions, an agent would need more context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 compensates by listing typical fields (text, complete_till, entity_id, entity_type, responsible_user_id, task_type_id) and noting that complete_till is a unix timestamp. This provides meaningful parameter guidance that the schema itself lacks. However, it does not clarify which fields are required or optional, leaving some ambiguity.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create one or more tasks.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like kommo_tasks_list, kommo_tasks_get, and kommo_tasks_update by focusing solely on creation. The title 'Create tasks' reinforces this purpose.

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 implies the tool is for creating tasks, but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. It does not mention that updates should use kommo_tasks_update or that listing uses kommo_tasks_list. The usage context is implied by the verb 'Create' rather than explicitly guided.

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