pipedrive_create_task

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

The description aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and adds behavioral context: it warns that the Projects API is in public beta, and clarifies the milestone/due_date constraint and field-name consistency with GET responses. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and required fields; the second adds precise guidance on boolean fields and the beta caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the core action, required fields, the milestone constraint, and beta status. However, it does not specify the return value (e.g., the created task object or an ID) on success, and there is no output schema. It also omits error behavior and prerequisites beyond the Projects add-on, leaving some gaps for a complex create operation.

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?

The schema describes all 11 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a minor note about is_done/is_milestone using the same field names as the GET response, but this does not significantly expand on parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb ('Create') and the resource ('a new task in a project'). It identifies required fields and provides context about the Projects API, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pipedrive_create_project or pipedrive_update_task. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides some usage guidance: it notes required fields, advises on boolean field names matching GET responses, and states the milestone requires a due_date. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like pipedrive_update_task or pipedrive_list_tasks, so when-not-to-use is left implicit.

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