task_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the returned task_id, defines dependency DAG semantics (non-claimable until every dependency is terminal), and explains the approval gate lifecycle (awaiting_approval, blocking downstream nodes, release only via task_approve). This goes far beyond a generic 'create' statement.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands into the non-obvious behaviors. It is slightly wordy, especially the approval-gate paragraph with 'Explicitly new approval-criteria + require_approval', but it does not contain filler and each sentence adds information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (DAG construction and human approval gates), the description covers the essential call semantics and return value. Small gaps remain: 'terminal' is not defined and no guidance is given on how dependencies refer to existing task IDs. Overall, an agent could invoke it for standard and approval-gate cases.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It explains the four non-obvious parameters: deliverable (artifact path), acceptance_criteria (verification method), dependencies (DAG, blocking behavior), and require_approval (approval gate). The remaining parameters (title, priority, assigned_to, description) are self-explanatory or covered by the schema enum.

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 the task queue,' and states the return value (task_id). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like task_claim, task_complete, and task_approve, which target different lifecycle stages.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (creating a task, optionally with a dependency DAG or an approval gate). However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it—for example, it doesn't mention that task_depend could add dependencies to an existing task, so exclusions are absent.

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