create_task

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses an error condition and parent/child placement semantics. It does not discuss permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what happens on invalid IDs, but it is more transparent than a bare 'create task'.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the placement rules are compressed 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?

For an 11-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains only placement. It leaves out how the remaining parameters behave, response/return behavior, and error handling beyond the conflicting-ID case. That is a significant coverage gap.

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 this description must compensate. It meaningfully explains projectId and parentTaskId and their mutual exclusivity, but it says nothing about the other nine properties (tagIds, dueDate, repetitionRule, etc.), many of which have no descriptions in the schema either.

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') and then clarifies the three placement variants, which separates it from the unrelated create_* siblings though it doesn't name 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?

It gives explicit conditions for placement: omit both for inbox, include projectId for project, include parentTaskId for subtask, and states the error case for both together. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the placement guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool over edit/complete/drop.

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