tasks_add

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

Annotations are minimal (no readOnly, destructive hints), so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behaviors: dependency resolution, project creation on unknown slug, and the special 'global' project. This adds significant value 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?

Three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states core purpose, second and third explain key behaviors (dependencies and ready condition). Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Covers core behavior, dependencies, and project creation. Does not explain return values (no output schema), error responses (e.g., cycle detection details), or rate limits. Given complexity, it is fairly complete but could mention error handling for invalid depends_on.

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 description adds critical meaning beyond the schema: clarifies depends_on constraints (must exist, no cycles), project slug behavior (creates unknown slugs, global special case), and plan slug convention. This fully compensates for any schema deficiencies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('task to the dependency-aware ready queue'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like tasks_claim, tasks_list, etc. It also explains the dependency and ready condition, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (adding a task with dependencies) and explains constraints (depends_on must exist, no cycles). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling tools cover different operations.

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