create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It explains that Tasks are transient and scaffold subtopics (goal, plan, notes), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose what scaffolding actually creates (e.g., do these subtopics auto-appear?), default behaviors, idempotency concerns, or what happens if slug conflicts. The behavioral description is surface-level.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the second explains the entity's nature and linking behavior, the third notes scaffolding. No wasted words, though the second sentence packs a lot of conceptual density.

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?

Has an output schema and 100% param coverage, which lowers the bar. The description explains the entity concept (transient, composed context, scaffolding) which helps agents understand the broader workflow. However, it doesn't clarify the create-vs-scaffold relationship, whether the scaffolded subtopics appear on creation or require separate calls, or how this interacts with the link_task flow beyond mentioning it. Reasonable but with gaps.

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 schema thoroughly documents each of the 4 parameters including defaults and formats. The description adds marginal context by noting scaffolds ('goal, plan, notes') which relates to how parameters feed scaffolding, but doesn't add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies 'Create a new Task entity' with a specific verb+resource. It adds context that Tasks are 'transient units of work' and mentions scaffolding. It distinguishes from siblings like create_repo/create_governance by specifying 'Task entity', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The 'transient' framing distinguishes Tasks from other persistence entities, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 states Tasks compose context via linking to Component/Repo/Governance refs, which implies when to use it, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from related operations like upsert_context or suggest_task_links. The phrase 'via link_task' hints at follow-up usage but no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool references are given. Adequate but not explicit.

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