create_task

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the bar is low. The description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: links are merged as a union with parent, duplicate pairs are no-ops, and `links: []` is refused rather than treated as 'no links'. It omits dryRun semantics, which is a notable behavioral gap for a mutation 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, followed by a dense but purposeful paragraph on link semantics. It is appropriately sized for the subtlety it explains, with no filler, though the link paragraph is packed tightly enough to require careful reading.

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 13-parameter creation tool with no output schema and almost no schema descriptions, the definition covers only the creation act and the links nuance. Nothing tells the agent what dryRun does, what the tool returns, or what a successful call looks like, leaving clear gaps given the schema's richness.

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 only 8% across 13 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It thoroughly explains the `links`/`parent` union and the empty-array refusal, but leaves the majority of parameters (dryRun, url, tags, sortKey, selector, cssSelector, status, priority) undocumented, and much of the link text echoes the existing schema property description.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Create a new task') plus the primary fields it accepts, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It also implicitly differentiates itself from update_task by referencing that tool's merge semantics, though it never explicitly states the create-vs-update boundary.

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 'create' and the note that a new task has nothing to preserve, which gently explains why links behave as a pure union. However, there is no explicit 'use this when you need a new task, not update_task/get_task' routing guidance despite eleven sibling tools.

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