create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions creation and return format, but it contradicts the input schema by stating caller_agent_id is 'required' when schema marks it as optional with default null. This inconsistency undermines trust and does not disclose other behaviors like idempotency, side effects, or error states.

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 structured with a short purpose statement, a permission note, a parameter list, and a returns section. It is concise and front-loads essential information. However, the inaccuracy about caller_agent_id detracts from overall clarity.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose, permissions, parameters, and return format. An output schema exists (not shown), potentially reducing the need to detail returns, yet the description still provides a summary. However, the contradiction with the schema leaves gaps, and the description does not address potential edge cases or error conditions beyond a generic 'error'.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter, but the description incorrectly marks caller_agent_id as required while schema shows it as optional. This inaccuracy reduces the usefulness of the parameter descriptions. Additionally, terms like 'metadata' lack specification on allowed structure.

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 'Create a new task' (新しいタスクを作成する), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_task_status, assign_task_to_agent, etc., which modify or query tasks rather than create them.

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 includes a permission restriction ('Only Owner and Admin can use'), which provides context on when the tool is available. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or specify when to use this tool vs. other task-related tools. The guideline is helpful but incomplete.

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