task_create

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation, and the description confirms the core behavior by stating it creates a task. It adds the parent-scope detail ('within an epic') but does not explain side effects, response behavior, or failure when an epic_id is invalid. There is no contradiction with the 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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded before context. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the parameter schema or annotations.

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 11 parameters, a nested source_ref object, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not state what a successful creation returns, how to handle an invalid or missing epic_id, or which optional fields are commonly relevant when creating a task. The schema covers parameter details, but important behavioral and return context is missing.

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 73%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'within an epic' context, which maps to epic_id but does not enrich the meaning of the other 10 parameters beyond their existing schema descriptions.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a task within an epic.' This clearly separates it from task_update, task_batch_update, and subtask_create. The extra sentence 'Tasks are the primary unit of work' reinforces the tool's role and scope.

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 useful context that tasks belong to an epic, and 'primary unit of work' hints at top-level task creation. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of subtask_create, task_update, or other related tools. There are no clear exclusions or alternatives, so usage guidance is only implied.

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