create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that :ID: is auto-generated when omitted, that CREATED and MODIFIED timestamps are managed automatically, and that duplicate search is required. It does not specify the behavior when a duplicate is found or what response the tool returns, but the disclosed behaviors go well beyond a minimal create description.

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 four sentences, all information-bearing and free of filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by format requirements, auto-generation behavior, and guardrails. Every sentence earns its place, and the external format-guide reference avoids unnecessary inlining.

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 two-parameter create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers required parameters, provides duplicate-search guidance, explains auto-generated fields, and points to a format reference. It does not describe the return value or error cases, but those are not essential for correct invocation given the schema and example already present.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters with descriptions and an example. The description adds extra meaning by emphasizing the required PROPERTIES drawer fields, the subsections structure, auto-generation behavior, and a pointer to the format guide. This exceeds the schema-only baseline but does not fully replace schema documentation for every field.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new task in a section.' It goes on to define the required org-formatted entry, which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable. However, it does not name or otherwise differentiate itself from sibling tools such as update_task or move_task, so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar.

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 gives clear usage context: which sections are allowed, the need for a complete org-format entry, and the explicit instruction to always search for duplicates before creating. It does not state when to prefer an alternative tool, nor does it give an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the guidance provided is sufficient for a straightforward create operation.

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