create_task

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses very little. It reveals that parent/label names are resolved server-side, but says nothing about permissions (even though schema fields like start_date/end_date say 'needs full access'), side effects, defaults (e.g. parent defaults to inbox), or failure modes.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious constraint. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 14-parameter creation tool with no annotations, this is thin. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, but the description never addresses permissions, default behavior, or the semantics of the numerous scheduling fields, leaving significant gaps for such a complex tool.

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 57% across 14 params, so the schema does much of the work (dates, importance scale, parent default). The description adds real value by clarifying that parent and label values are name-resolved and that shortcut syntax is rejected, which directly informs those two params, but it leaves the remaining undocumented params untouched.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Create a task'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_project, create_category, and create_label by resource type. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate from update_task or otherwise name alternatives.

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?

The only actionable guidance is the caution not to use '#/@' shortcuts, which is a syntax hint rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when to prefer this over update_task, create_project, or other ordering tools, and no prerequisites are given.

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