Timequip

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that the assignee is notified as a side effect, which an agent would not infer from the annotations. It stops short of detailing failure modes or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, with zero filler. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and with only two fully-documented parameters the description covers enough to call the tool correctly. The only missing element is permission or error-handling context for this mutating 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both taskKey (including an example format) and content already documented. The 'max 5000 characters' note merely restates the schema's maxLength constraint, so no meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a comment to a task'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_task_comments and delete_task_comment. It does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings, but the operation 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. list_task_comments or delete_task_comment), and no prerequisites such as required permissions. Only the implicit 'add a comment' action conveys intent.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the status is identified by name rather than ID and that positioning is optional, but says nothing about side effects such as notifications, workflow revalidation, or failure when the status name is unknown.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the optional behavior trailing in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted or repeated.

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?

With a fully documented schema, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is behavior on invalid status names or statuses outside the current workflow, which is minor for this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the enum for placement and the referenceTaskKey pairing. The description's '(by name)' and 'positioning it relative to another task' restate schema content without adding new syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Move a task to a different workflow status') plus the optional relative-positioning capability, which distinguishes it from generic siblings like update_task. It stops short of explicitly naming update_task as the alternative, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope of the operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-prefer-update_task guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as workflow/board membership or valid status names. The '(by name)' hint and 'optionally positioning' clause give partial context.

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

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

Annotations already declare the write/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds two genuine side effects: the statuses requirement and the fact that the creator becomes project leader. It does not mention permission requirements or what happens on a duplicate project key.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two constraints that matter most; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't explain return values. Given that, it is largely complete, covering the required structural input and the leadership side effect, though it omits error/duplicate-key behavior.

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% and each of name, key, and statuses is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only echoes that statuses are mandatory, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a project') with an explicit scope ('in the connected account'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_task, create_tag, and update_project.

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 establishes a hard prerequisite ('You must define the workflow statuses'), which is useful context, but gives no guidance on when to create a project versus updating an existing one or checking list_projects first, and names no alternative tool.

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

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

Annotations already disclose the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It contributes only the 'in a project' scoping, with nothing about duplicate-name behavior, permission requirements, or side effects of creating a tag.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of omitting useful context rather than from deliberate trimming.

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 low-complexity, three-parameter creation tool, annotations cover the safety profile, the schema covers all inputs, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. What remains missing is usage/routing context, so the definition is minimally but not fully complete.

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% (name with max length, color hex format, projectKey example), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (create) and resource (tag) plus its scope ('in a project'), so an agent can immediately tell what the tool does. It does not name or contrast any sibling (create_project, create_task, update_tag), but the resource nouns are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_tag, delete_tag, or list_project_tags, nor any prerequisite (e.g., tag must not already exist, valid projectKey needed). The description gives no usage context at all.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail outside the annotations — that status falls back to the first workflow column when omitted. It says nothing about permissions or membership requirements for creating tasks.

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, both load-bearing: the first establishes the action and scope, the second covers the only non-obvious default. Nothing is repeated from the schema or the title.

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 creation tool with an output schema, well-documented parameters, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. Remaining gaps — auth/membership requirements and whether tags are auto-created (left to the schema) — are minor.

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 coverage is 88%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by documenting the defaulting behavior of the 'status' parameter, which the schema only describes as a workflow status name. It adds no further semantics (e.g. tag auto-creation, assignee constraints) beyond what the schema already carries.

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 and resource ('Create a new task in a project'), which distinguishes it from create_project and update_task. It does not name siblings explicitly, so it stops short of the top score, but 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?

Usage is only implied by the create semantics; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any routing to siblings like update_task or change_task_status. The status-default note hints at a prerequisite consideration but is not framed as guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it doesn't say whether deletion is permanent, whether it fails when the tag is in use on tasks, or what the response looks like. It essentially restates the annotation without enriching it.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool, though there is no additional structure because there is nothing extra to structure.

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 destructive tool with an output schema absent but destructive/read-only hints present and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits any note about irreversibility or error behavior, which is acceptable but leaves the definition adequate rather than complete.

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 both parameters (name, projectKey) are fully documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'by name' and 'from a project' loosely maps to those parameters but adds no format, casing, or identifier details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a tag') plus scope ('from a project by name'), so an agent can identify the operation immediately. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like create_tag, update_tag, or list_project_tags, which is where a 5 would require explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. update_tag for renaming), and no prerequisites such as permissions. The usage is only inferable from the verb itself, which is the definition of no explicit guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with 'This cannot be undone,' clarifying permanence beyond the destructive hint. It still omits side effects (cascading deletion of comments/subtasks) and any permission requirements.

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, zero waste, with the action and its irreversibility front-loaded. Every word 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 one-parameter delete whose annotations already carry the destructive/read-write profile, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful gap is what else is destroyed along with the task (comments, subtasks).

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% and the single taskKey parameter is already documented with an example format ("ACME-42"). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete) and resource (task), and the adverb 'permanently' sharpens the scope. It is distinguishable from siblings like delete_tag and delete_task_comment by resource name, though it never explicitly differentiates itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., change_task_status for soft-closing, or delete_task_comment for removing discussion), and no prerequisites or warnings about when not to delete.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the irreversibility signal is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context — the permission model (author or task editor) — which is not expressed in the annotations or schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence carries the action, the identifier, its provenance, and the permission constraint with no wasted words.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, id source, and authorization. Minor omissions (error behavior on missing/already-deleted comments) are not critical, and annotations already flag the destructive nature.

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 both parameters (taskKey, commentId) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the commentId comes from list_task_comments, adding no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a comment from a task') and scopes it to a single comment identified by id, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_task and delete_tag. An agent can select it without opening 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?

It gives a clear authorization precondition ('Allowed for the author or a task editor') and points to list_task_comments as the id source, but it does not state when-not to use it or name an alternative for comment removal/editing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral invariant beyond the structured fields — every connection maps to exactly one account, hence no id is ever accepted or required.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the payload (what is returned) is front-loaded and the no-id rationale follows as supporting context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes the shape (account plus your role). Nothing essential is missing for a zero-parameter read, though it does not mention failure modes such as an unauthenticated connection.

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?

There are zero parameters, which establishes a baseline of 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly explaining why no account id parameter exists, making the empty schema semantically clear rather than merely empty.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Get the Timequip account this connection is linked to, plus your role in it"), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as get_my_profile or get_dashboard, which plausibly touch the same account/identity domain.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it explains that no account id is needed because the connection is bound to one account, which is a useful precondition. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing away from related tools like get_my_profile.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: it "Opens an interactive Dashboard widget in ChatGPT," telling the agent this call has a UI side effect rather than returning plain data.

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, zero waste, and the most useful detail (what the snapshot contains) is front-loaded ahead of the widget-behavior note. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and with no parameters there is no input contract to document. For a zero-arg read tool, what it returns and the fact that it opens a widget is everything an agent needs.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly spends no space on parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get a snapshot of the connected account") and enumerates the exact payload: active projects with progress, upcoming deadlines, open tasks. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_connected_account and get_recent_activities, which return different slices of account data.

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 summary nature of the content implies the tool is for an at-a-glance overview, but the description never states when to prefer it over get_connected_account, get_recent_activities, or list_tasks. Usage is inferable from the enumerated content but not explicitly guided, and no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only added disclosure is the set of returned fields (username, email, name), which duplicates the output schema. It adds marginal value and no behavioral detail beyond 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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a dedicated output schema, the description supplies everything needed to invoke it correctly; the return shape is already handled by the output schema. Only the lack of any sibling/usage routing keeps it from being fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The parenthetical field list refers to outputs rather than inputs and therefore adds nothing to parameter understanding, but there is nothing left to document.

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 ('Get') and a precisely scoped resource ('the current user's own profile'), with the returned fields named inline. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_task or list_account_members, though it never explicitly contrasts with the same-subject sibling update_my_profile or with get_connected_account.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_connected_account or update_my_profile. The 'my' wording implies it is scoped to the authenticated user, but the agent must infer that no other tool covers this case.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the feed's scope (connected account), the activity types it contains, and the fixed pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: scope, content, and pagination each appear once and in order of importance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure needn't be described. For a one-optional-param read tool the definition is nearly sufficient; the only minor gap is not stating the recency window the feed covers.

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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter ('page', default 1) is fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by disclosing the page size (5 per page), which is needed to interpret the page number's meaning.

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 and resource ('Get the recent activity feed') and scopes it to the connected account, enumerating the activity kinds (task/comment/role changes). No sibling conflicts, so no differentiation is needed, though it never references an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the self-evident purpose of fetching an activity feed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of how it relates to neighbors like get_dashboard or list_task_comments.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of what happens when the key is unknown, permission requirements, or freshness of the data. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the lookup key and the returned fields are stated immediately. Every clause 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?

Should be no output-size issue: the tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, and the one parameter is fully documented. For a simple read-by-key tool the definition is nearly complete, with only error/not-found behavior unaddressed.

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% and the single taskKey parameter is fully documented in the schema with the identical 'ACME-42' example repeated in the description. Nothing new is added beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (get) and resource (a single task) with the lookup key, and the word 'single' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_tasks. It enumerates what is returned (description, status name, assignee, tags), so the agent knows exactly what it yields. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling explicitly, which is the only gap.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by its key': the agent infers this is for when a known task key is in hand, versus list_tasks for discovery. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many task siblings. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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

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

The schema is fully described and the description adds no parameter-level information. It mentions the default role, which is useful context not present in the schema, but that single fact is the only addition. There is no compensation for the coverage gap because there is no gap – baseline 3 would already apply.

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 tight clauses with the dual email/username input and the resulting role front-loaded. No sentence is wasted, and the tool's name already scopes the operation.

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?

Irrelevant format text, includes suggested parameters despite being a parameter-semantics eval, and the 'Displaying Format' block is malformed and adds no callable content.

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 is fully described and the description adds no parameter-level information. It mentions the default role, which is useful context not present in the schema, but that single fact is the only addition. There is no compensation for the coverage gap because there is no gap – baseline 3 would already apply.

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?

This tool is exactly the kind of mutation without annotations that most needs behavioral disclosure, and the description does not provide it. openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false tell me it is a networked write, but not whether the invite is idempotent, whether duplicate emails error, or how role assignment can be changed later. A single conditional clause would have closed the gap; as written, the agent still cannot predict or recover from failure modes.

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?

No usage guidance at all. The description does not tell the agent when to pick this tool over update_account_member_role, remove_account_member, or list_account_members, and it never addresses the obvious credential prerequisite.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — that pending invitations are included in the result, not just active members — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or permission requirements for viewing members.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and the exact contents of the response are stated before anything else.

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?

With an output schema present to describe return fields, rich annotations covering the safety profile, and no input parameters to document, the description only needs to convey scope — which it does, including the non-obvious inclusion of pending invitations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes nothing the description must compensate for; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, and none 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?

States a specific verb (List), the resource (members of the connected account), and the scope detail (account roles plus pending invitations). The 'connected account' framing implicitly separates it from the sibling list_project_members, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening a 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 says what is returned but never states when to use this tool versus list_project_members for project-scoped members or invite_account_member / remove_account_member for mutations of the same resource. No prerequisites, no exclusions, so usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond them — no note on pagination, whether private members are excluded, or visibility/permission requirements.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the role detail is the only extra and it is relevant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the sole parameter is fully documented. For a simple read-only list tool this is nearly sufficient, with only permission/pagination context 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 100% and the single projectKey parameter is documented in the schema with an example ('ACME'). The description adds only the returned role enumeration, not parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb and resource ('List the members of a project') and adds the scope detail that roles (leader/editor/viewer) are included. It reads distinctly from list_account_members or list_project_tags, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_account_members or other list tools, and no stated prerequisites such as required permission or whether the project must exist. Usage is only implied by the name.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include key, name, workflow status names and tag names, which is modest extra context beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. The second sentence partly restates what the existing output schema can convey, which slightly dilutes its value.

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?

With zero parameters, a full output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is essentially complete for correct invocation. It could only improve by noting scope limits such as pagination or account permissions.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-related for the description to compensate for. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 (List) and resource (projects) scoped to 'the connected account', which is clear and unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings such as list_project_members or list_project_tags, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource name alone.

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 implies the natural usage (enumerate all projects in the account) but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives among the many list_* siblings. Adequate but leaves routing inference to the agent.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only the returned fields, which the existing output schema already documents, so it contributes minimal behavioral context beyond structured data.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope lead and the parenthetical return detail is secondary. Every clause 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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on result ordering or size, but that is a minor gap given the output schema exists.

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% and there is a single required projectKey parameter with its own example ("ACME") in the schema. The description adds no further syntax, format, or validation meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (tags) and scopes it to a project, and it even names the returned fields (name and color). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_tag/update_tag/delete_tag, but the read-only scope 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?

Usage is implied: an agent would call this when it needs the tag vocabulary of a known project. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., list_projects to find the projectKey first), so the guidance is only adequate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations: results are paginated and returned newest-first, and each comment exposes an id consumed by delete_task_comment. It stops short of stating rate limits or total-count semantics.

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, zero filler, with the resource and the ordering constraint front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers ordering, pagination, and the key downstream use of the returned ids, leaving only minor gaps such as page-boundary behavior for a 3-parameter read tool.

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 67%: 'limit' and 'taskKey' are documented in the schema while 'page' is not. The description's 'paginated' wording hints at the paging model but adds no format or boundary detail beyond what the schema already carries, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List comments on a task') with the ordering qualifier 'newest first'. It is clear enough to separate from get_task and add_task_comment, though it does not name a sibling explicitly and no sibling tool competes for the same read.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent infers this is the read path before delete_task_comment or add_task_comment. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, but the 'id used by delete_task_comment' note does gesture at the downstream workflow.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, fully clarifying side-effect behavior. The description's 'List' aligns with read-only semantics, and an output schema exists.

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 a single efficient sentence, and the schema is well-structured with additionalProperties=false. No redundant or confusing text.

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 tool provides full parameter coverage, required vs optional distinction, annotations, output schema, and clear pagination/filtering. Sibling context confirms it is the canonical list-tasks 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?

All 8 parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, including examples, formats, defaults, and constraints (e.g., limit 1-50, status e.g. 'In Progress'). The meaning is clear without ambiguity.

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 it lists tasks in a project with optional filters and pagination, matching the tool name and distinguishing it from singular get_task. It specifies the resource (tasks) and scope (in a project).

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 explains when to use the tool (to list tasks with filters), and the schema provides detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters including defaults for page/limit and required projectKey. It lacks explicit sibling comparison but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a meaningful guard not present in annotations: you cannot remove yourself or the account owner. It does not describe success/failure behavior or auth requirements, but the added constraint is valuable.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint. Every sentence earns its place 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 simple one-parameter destructive mutation, the description pairs the action with the essential self/owner guard. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers the parameter; no output schema exists so return values need not be described. It is nearly complete, missing only optional context on side effects.

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%; the single parameter 'username' is already documented as 'Target member username.' The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a user from the connected account'). The phrase 'connected account' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling remove_project_member, but it does not name or explicitly contrast with any alternative tool.

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 only states a constraint ('Cannot remove yourself or the owner'), not when to use this tool versus alternatives like remove_project_member or update_account_member_role. No usage context or exclusions are offered.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral constraint (last leader cannot be removed), but says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to the user's assigned tasks, or required permissions.

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, zero filler, with the action stated first and the edge-case constraint second. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose plus the key failure mode. Only minor gaps remain around permission requirements and downstream effects on the removed user's work.

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 both projectKey (with an example format) and username are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or identity semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('user from a project'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling remove_account_member. It does not explicitly name that sibling or explain the project-scope boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and description; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus update_project_member_role (demotion) or remove_account_member (account-level removal). The 'cannot remove the last leader' note is a precondition rather than usage routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk profile is known without the description. The description adds the restriction that only admin/member roles are settable and that ownership transfer is out of scope, but says nothing about what happens to the member's prior role, required caller permissions, or reversibility — modest added value beyond 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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope limitation tucked into a parenthetical. Every clause 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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, rich annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the scope boundary an agent needs. The only remaining gap is caller-permission expectations, which are not stated.

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% and the role enum is defined in the schema, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description restates the enum values ('admin or member') but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Set') plus resource ('account member's role') and enumerates the allowed target values. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling update_project_member_role by scoping to account members, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either 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?

Gives clear context for the tool's scope and adds one explicit exclusion ('Ownership transfer is not available through this connector'), which is genuine when-not guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tool for ownership transfer or stating the permission prerequisite (e.g. caller must be an account admin), so it is not a full 5.

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

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description never addresses that profile data can be overwritten, whether the change is reversible, or whether authentication is implied. 'and/or' is the only behavioral hint (partial update), which is thin for a mutation flagged destructive.

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?

One short sentence with the action and the affected fields front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant; every word 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive-flagged mutation with zero parameter documentation, the description omits permission requirements and the effect on unmentioned profile fields, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and neither parameter has a description, so the description carries some burden. It does map 'first and/or last name' onto firstName/lastName and implies both are optional, but adds no format or constraint details beyond that mapping.

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 (update) and resource (current user's profile), and names the exact fields touched (first/last name). It is clear on its own, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like get_my_profile or update_account_member_role.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The sibling list contains update_account_member_role and get_my_profile, and the description gives no cue about when this self-service update is appropriate versus those.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: statuses are matched by name and a provided status list is effectively the full set (existing ones must be included to survive), while omitting the field avoids touching statuses at all. It stops short of describing permissions or confirmation requirements.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the status-matching contract. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the destructive/open-world profile. The remaining minor gap is the fate of existing statuses not listed when a status array is supplied, which the description gestures at but never states explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: name matching, the keep/reorder/add contract, and the omit-means-name-only rule. These resolve ambiguity the schema's terse 'matched by name' note does not fully address.

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 specific verbs and resources: rename a project and adjust its workflow statuses. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_project, update_task, and update_tag without needing to open any 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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for invocation: include existing statuses to keep/reorder, add new ones, or omit statuses entirely to change only the name. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use create_project or update_task instead), so routing is left to the sibling names alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a restatement of the role enum found in the schema, and says nothing about whether the new role replaces the old one, what permission changes ripple out, or what authorization is required.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves explanatory gaps rather than being an example of rich concision.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the mutation safety profile, so return values and danger signals are handled elsewhere. What is missing is the prerequisite context (existing membership), the effect on the prior role, and any routing to sibling role-management tools, making this the minimum viable definition.

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% and the role parameter carries an enum, so the schema fully documents all three required parameters. The description merely repeats the enum values, adding no syntax, format, or identity-resolution guidance beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb (set), resource (project role) and the exact enum values, so the agent knows it mutates a member's project-level role. The 'project' qualifier implicitly separates it from update_account_member_role and update_project, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus update_account_member_role or remove_project_member, and no stated prerequisites (the user must already be a project member). The agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds the identity rule ('identified by its current name'), but says nothing about name-collision behavior on rename or whether the old name remains resolvable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that pairs the two supported mutations with the lookup key. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive/open-world profile. For a simple two-capability mutation the description is nearly sufficient, missing only conflict/edge-case behavior on rename.

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 name, newName, color, and projectKey are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the rename/color intent (newName and color) without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema supplies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource pair: renaming a tag or changing its color, with the lookup key ('current name') stated. This cleanly separates it from create_tag and delete_tag, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings or with update_project.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus create_tag, delete_tag, or list_project_tags, and no prerequisites such as permissions. The only usage hint is the implicit precondition that the tag is identified by its current name.

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

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: only provided fields change (partial update) and moving status reorders the task. This exceeds basic annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by key behavioral notes. No wasted words.

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 complexity (8 params, 1 required), annotations (destructive), and presence of an output schema, the description covers essential behavioral aspects. It could mention required taskKey and potential permissions, but is largely complete.

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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds context about partial updates and the side effect of status changes, but does not detail individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema 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 a specific verb (Update) and resource (existing task), and specifies scope (fields). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like change_task_status, though the scope of field updates is broader.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., change_task_status). Usage is implied but no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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