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. It adds useful behavioral context by mentioning that tasks can be assigned, have dependencies, and form a tree structure. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what the response includes, nor does it clarify behavior around project identification via the multiple possible 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and object, and no wasted words. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain how to choose among project_id, project_name, and workspace_path, nor does it describe return values or error behavior. While the schema fills in parameter details, the tool-level context is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 provides descriptions for all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by grouping parameters into features (assigned agents, dependencies, tree structure), which helps the agent understand the intent behind those fields. This lifts it above the baseline, though it does not clarify all parameter relationships (e.g., project_id vs project_name vs workspace_path).

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a new task in a project'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project, update_task_status, or delete_task. It also gives a concise summary of what the tool accomplishes.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('Use this to track work that needs to be done') and mentions key features (assignment, dependencies, tree) that imply when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest score.

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