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 burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors beyond the schema: the created task starts in a 'pending' state, and request_id enables idempotent retries. It omits permissions/auth requirements, what happens when the same request_id is replayed, and what the call returns.

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 with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and each clause adds distinct guidance (retry safety, deduplication).

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: no permission requirements, no return shape, and most parameters unexplained. Only the deduplication and retry story is adequately covered.

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% across six parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only explains request_id (idempotency key for retries). The meaning of files, description, and the required project_id/agent_id/title pairing is left entirely to bare schema titles.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a pending task') and states the resulting state, which separates it from siblings such as claim_task, update_task, and create_project. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 concrete when-to guidance: check list_tasks first to avoid duplicating existing work, and supply request_id for safe retries. It stops short of exclusions, e.g. when to use update_task or claim_task instead, so it is clear context without full routing rules.

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