create_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It does reveal that omitting `project` uses VIKUNJA_PROJECT and that the description is plain text with blank-line paragraph separators. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the response shape, leaving notable gaps for a write operation.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides two concise usage notes. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail – every phrase earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the main points: action, default project, and description formatting. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., created task object or ID) or error conditions, which an agent might need. The shortfall is modest but present.

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 0%, so the burden falls on the description. It adds real meaning to `project` (defaults to VIKUNJA_PROJECT when not provided) and to `description` (plain text, paragraphs separated by blank lines). `title` is self-explanatory and already marked required in the schema, so no further elaboration is needed.

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 'Crea una tarea en un proyecto' (creates a task in a project), which is a specific verb+resource statement. It also explains the project default (VIKUNJA_PROJECT) when omitted, making the tool's scope clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_task or list_tasks without needing to inspect the schema.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to create a task, and the note about omitting `project` tells the agent when the default applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but for a create operation there is little ambiguity. This fits 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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