subtask_create

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses two useful behavioral traits: each title becomes its own record and new subtasks are appended after existing ones. This gives the agent a concrete expectation of side effects; no contradiction with the annotations is present.

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?

Three sentences, each contributing distinct information: what the tool creates, how titles map to records, and where the records are placed. The key verb and resource are front-loaded with no filler.

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 3-parameter tool with fully described schema, the core behavior and placement semantics are covered. It does not describe the return value or the exact interaction of depends_on with multiple new subtasks, but these are relatively minor given the schema coverage and the absence of nested objects or enums.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the titles array-to-record mapping and append behavior, which the schema alone does not fully convey. It appropriately leaves task_id and depends_on details to the schema, which already documents them.

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 and resource: 'Create subtasks (checklist items) for a task.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools subtask_update, subtask_reorder, and subtask_delete, and from task_create, by saying it creates child checklist records rather than tasks or updated subtasks.

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?

It communicates the clear usage context: add checklist items to an existing task, with titles passed as an array. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the strongest routing guidance, but the context is unambiguous.

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