create_task

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a mutating operation ('Create') and discloses a non-obvious default: falling back to VIKUNJA_DEFAULT_PROJECT_ID when project_id is omitted. It does not enumerate every side effect, but the schema already documents label auto-creation.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the fallback detail is placed exactly where it adds value without bloating the description.

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 12-parameter tool with a fully described input schema and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose and the only non-schema behavior that matters at selection time. A minor gap is that it doesn't mention label auto-creation or project validation, though both are partially covered by the schema.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the project_id fallback behavior, which is not stated in the parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a task in a project.' This clearly distinguishes it from create_project, update_task, list_tasks, and other siblings, and the added project context narrows the scope.

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 a clear context (creating a task in a project) and a practical fallback rule for omitted project_id. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the action verb makes the primary use case unambiguous.

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