create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of revealing behavioral traits. It describes capabilities ('Supports the full task field set') but does not disclose mutation side effects, return value, permission requirements, or special behaviors like the is_completed follow-up PUT (which appears only in the schema). An agent cannot infer these behaviors from the description alone.

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?

The description is three sentences: function, discovery guidance, and an example. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately orients the agent on required steps.

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 tool with 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is helpful but incomplete. It tells the agent how to discover valid IDs but does not explain the return value, error behavior, or edge cases like the is_completed follow-up PUT mechanism. The given complexity calls for more behavioral and output context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description paraphrases the field set rather than adding new semantic meaning. It highlights the combination of due date, time, and timezone, and maps 'subtask parent' and 'contact link' to schema params, but this is already explicit in the input schema. No additional parameter-level insight is provided.

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 'Create a new task,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tasks, update_task, and delete_task by using 'create' as the verb and 'task' as the resource.

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 description explicitly directs the agent to use sibling tools (list_users, list_projects, list_task_statuses, list_task_types) to discover valid IDs before calling create_task. This is clear when-to-use guidance and also points to alternative tools for prerequisite enumeration. The example sentence reinforces the intended usage pattern.

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