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 behavioral burden for a write tool, and it says almost nothing: no permissions required, no note on whether the created task is returned or how its id is obtained, no side effects such as notifications or watchers, no error behavior for invalid projectId. The only behavioral hint is the lookup routing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the lookup guidance. No filler. It is arguably too terse for an 8-parameter write tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at least indicate what happens on success and whether there are permission or validation constraints. With no output schema, the return value (e.g., the new task id) is undocumented anywhere in the definition.

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 titles, dates, priority scale, and label/project ids are all documented in the schema itself, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only the pointer that label ids come from list_labels, which is marginally useful but not compensating for anything missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a task in a project'), which is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like create_project or create_label beyond the resource name, which is enough here but not exceptional.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisite routing: use list_projects to find the projectId and list_labels for label ids. That is real when/how guidance an agent can act on. It does not state any when-not conditions or alternatives to create_task itself.

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