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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real value on top: new tasks default to incomplete, the created record is returned, and the underlying call is POST /tasks. It does not mention failure modes such as an invalid taskBoardId or a board that does not belong to the project.

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?

Five terse fragments with the operation class and target front-loaded, followed by the dependency, the default state, and the return value. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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 six-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the dependency chain, default state, and a summary of the return, which is enough to call it correctly. It leaves out error behavior and constraints on optional fields, but nothing essential 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by explaining where taskBoardId comes from and that the projectId filter ties the board to its project — a relationship the schema's one-line property descriptions do not convey. It says nothing about dueDate, taskGroupId, or descriptionHTML, but those are adequately documented in 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?

Opens with an explicit operation class ("WRITE") and a specific verb+resource ("add a task to a project's task board"), which separates it cleanly from plutio_update_task and plutio_list_tasks. An agent can identify the operation and target entity 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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite chain: obtain taskBoardId from plutio_list_task_boards using a projectId filter, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong here. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g., batching or updating an existing task instead), so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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