vikunja_create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic create operation without mentioning side effects, required permissions, whether the created task is returned, or any constraints (e.g., project must exist). For a mutation tool, this level of transparency is minimal.

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 directly states the purpose without any unnecessary words. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded.

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?

While the schema covers all parameters, the description is incomplete for a tool with 14 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what happens after creation, any prerequisites (e.g., project existence), or how the response is structured. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for all 14 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds minimal parameter semantics beyond implying project_id ('inside a project'), but since the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, the description does not need to compensate.

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: 'Create a task inside a project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context 'inside a project' distinguishes it from task update, delete, or project creation tools among the siblings.

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 phrase 'inside a project' implies that this tool is used when creating a task that belongs to a project, but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this over alternative tools (e.g., vikunja_update_task, vikunja_create_project). There is no exclusion or alternative comparison, so the usage guidance is only implied.

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