benchmark_create_task

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

With no annotations, the description must explain side effects itself, but it only says 'Create' without disclosing persistence, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the response contains. The blind benchmark context is mentioned, but no behavioral detail about the created resource or follow-up actions is provided.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists the key fields in a natural order. There is no redundant wording or fluff.

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?

Given the fully described 6-parameter schema, an agent can probably invoke the tool correctly. Yet the absence of annotations and an output schema, combined with no mention of what the create operation returns or how the task relates to the other benchmark workflows, leaves a modest but not critical context gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds only slight reinforcement for category, prompt, and evaluation_criteria; it does not add meaning for title, user_id, or difficulty. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states the exact verb ('Create'), the resource ('a new blind AI writing benchmark task'), and the core content fields ('category, prompt, and optional evaluation criteria'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools such as benchmark_compare_models, benchmark_get_results, and writer_generate, which cover comparing, retrieving, or writing rather than creating tasks.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb: call this when creating a new benchmark task. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over related alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., whether a user must exist beforehand).

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