teamstorm_create_subtask

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

Annotations already declare non-idempotency, and the description adds actionable context beyond them: repetition produces a duplicate subtask, retries after ambiguous failure are unsafe, task_type is not inherited from the parent, and description is passed through unchanged. This is the kind of guidance an agent needs before a mutating call.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the creation gate and parent resolution, then parameter specifics, then the return and non-idempotency caveat. No sentence is filler.

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 4-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description covers prerequisites (parent resolution, explicit user request), all parameters, the return shape at a high level, and the retry hazard. The output schema handles return detail, so nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: parent_task_key is specified with an example key format and its resolution to a UUID and workspace, name has a 1-255 length bound, and task_type accepts a type name or UUID and is not inherited. Every parameter is given meaning beyond its bare type.

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+resource ("Create a subtask") and immediately scopes it as a child of an existing parent via parent_task_key, which cleanly separates it from the sibling teamstorm_create_task. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 an explicit when-condition ("only when the user explicitly requests creation") plus a strong when-not signal ("Repeating this call creates another subtask; do not retry after an ambiguous failure"). It does not name the sibling alternative (create_task for top-level tasks), so it falls just short of a 5.

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