asana_add_project_to_task

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the default placement behavior (append to end when no positioning args are given), but omits idempotency (what happens if the task is already in the project), auth requirements, and failure modes.

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 followed by the key default behavior. Nothing wasted.

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 association tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and default placement, but leaves idempotency, error conditions, and permission needs 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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the mutual-exclusion rule. The description adds only the tie between 'positioning arguments' and the default end-of-project behavior, which is minimal added value over 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 relationship: adding an existing task to a project. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like asana_remove_project_from_task and asana_add_tag_to_task, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 describes what happens with positioning arguments but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus asana_update_task or asana_create_task, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing task and project.

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