create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates new tasks with default status, which implies mutation/write behavior. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on conflicts. The description adds basic behavioral context but misses important operational details for a creation tool.

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?

Well-structured with purpose statement followed by organized parameter documentation and return information. The description is appropriately sized for a 6-parameter creation tool, though the parameter documentation section is somewhat verbose. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no wasted text.

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 creation tool with no annotations but with output schema present, the description provides good coverage: clear purpose, detailed parameter semantics, and mentions return value ('创建成功的任务详情' - details of successfully created task). The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return structure, making this reasonably complete for the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic information for all 6 parameters: clarifies which are required ('name' is required), explains optional parameters, provides format specifications ('YYYY-MM-DD' for due_date), enumerates priority options with emoji mappings, and gives examples for tags. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the specific action ('创建一个新任务' - create a new task) and resource ('在工作流库中' - in the workflow library), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'append_task' or 'update_task' which modify existing tasks. It also specifies the default status ('状态默认为"待办"' - status defaults to 'pending'), providing precise scope.

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 implies usage context by specifying it's for creating new tasks in the workflow library, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'append_task' (which might add to existing tasks) or 'create_note' (for different resource types). It provides clear prerequisites (required 'name' parameter) but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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