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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious default (falls back to the active board when board_id is omitted), which is genuine context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about permissions required, side effects, or whether the caller is notified.

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 clauses, no filler, and the more actionable routing advice comes first. It is efficiently sized for the message, though extremely terse relative to the 11-parameter surface it fronts.

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 mutation tool with 11 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description covers only the board-routing behavior. The schema documents every parameter at 100%, which compensates, but an agent still learns nothing about side effects, error conditions, or the shape of the created task.

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 routing semantics for the board parameter ('deterministic routing' vs active-board default) but does not explain subtasks, telegram linking, or the enum priority beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('add a task'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_board, update_task, or move_task. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the name and phrasing leave no ambiguity about what gets created.

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 one conditional: supply boardId for deterministic routing, otherwise the active board is used. That is useful routing guidance but not a when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement; it never mentions update_task, list_tasks, or when not to create a task.

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