Create a task

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so well by stating nontrivial behavior: '#tags only attach to skills that already exist on the account' and 'Returns the created task with its attached skills.' The @Nh/@Nm estimate format is also explained. It does not discuss permission requirements or how unknown tags are handled, but the core side effects and return value are disclosed.

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 long and every sentence earns its place: a clear statement of the action, a concrete encoding example, and a constraint/return note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds detail only where it prevents misuse.

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 a small create-task tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it gives the tag syntax, the estimate marker, the existing-skill constraint, and the return value. It falls short of a 5 because it does not clarify the role of `project_id`, and it could more explicitly explain when to choose this over the sibling project and task-management tools.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does a good job explaining the `description` parameter via the #tag/@marker syntax, and indirectly connects that syntax to the estimate value. However, `project_id` is given no semantic meaning beyond its name, and the description does not say whether it is required for routing the task to a project or what happens if it is omitted.

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 the concrete action 'Create a task' and adds precise semantics: a task can carry #skill tags and an @Nh/@Nm estimate marker. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as dwt_create_project and dwt_list_tasks, since the resource being acted on is unambiguous and the tag/estimate rules are specific to creating a task.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated explicitly. The description shows how to create a task with #tags and estimates, so an agent can infer that this is the right tool for new task creation. However, it never names alternatives or says when not to use the tool, such as 'use dwt_create_project for project creation' or 'use dwt_create_task only when the target project is already known.'

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