jules_create_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the dispatch is asynchronous and that the prompt is automatically decorated with system invariants, sandbox test runners, and anti-pause directives. This surfaces useful hidden behavior, though it does not mention PR side effects or return values.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, and no filler. The second sentence earns its place by revealing automatic behavior that an agent would otherwise not know.

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 9-parameter, side-effecting, asynchronous tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin on post-dispatch behavior—such as how results are tracked or which sibling tool should be used for follow-up. However, the asynchronous intent is clear and required parameters are obvious from the schema, making it minimally viable.

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 schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond a general 'coding chore,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Dispatch') and a concrete resource ('Google Jules'), and characterizes the operation as an asynchronous coding chore. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but 'asynchronous' helps separate it from wait/recipe/batch variants.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool vs. jules_dispatch_and_wait, jules_queue_tasks, jules_recipe_dispatch, or jules_batch_dispatch. 'Asynchronous' weakly implies fire-and-forget, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative naming.

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