teamstorm_create_task

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, and the description reinforces the critical ones with operational detail: "Repeating this call creates another task; do not retry after an ambiguous failure" directly addresses the idempotentHint=false hazard, and it notes the returned artifact. This is exactly the extra context annotations can't convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the precondition, then parameters, then the failure-mode warning. No filler, no restatement of the schema structure, and every clause provides actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps that matter for a 5-parameter, 4-required mutation tool: argument formats, precondition, and duplicate-call/retry behavior.

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 the description carries the full burden and does: workspace_key with a concrete example (TS), folder_id as a folder UUID, name with a 1-255 character bound, task_type as type name or UUID, and description as optional and passed through unchanged. 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 and resource ("Create a TeamStorm task") and scopes it with "only when the user explicitly requests creation." It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling teamstorm_create_subtask, which is the one genuinely confusable alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a clear activation condition ("only when the user explicitly requests creation") plus two negative constraints ("Do not guess folder or type", "do not retry after an ambiguous failure"). It never names an alternative tool such as teamstorm_create_subtask, so routing between creation siblings is left to inference rather than spelled out.

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