Add Project To Task

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds useful behavioral details: default placement at the end of the project and the mutual exclusivity of placement parameters. These go beyond what the annotations provide and do not contradict them.

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 three concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second gives the default behavior, and the third explains the optional parameters with a clear constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, full schema coverage, and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, default behavior, and parameter constraints. A minor omission is the behavior when the task is already in the project, but the idempotentHint annotation implies that such calls are safe and likely have no adverse effect.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds value by stating the default end-of-project behavior and reinforcing the mutual exclusivity constraint, which enriches the understanding of how the optional parameters relate to each other.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Add an existing task to a project' with a specific verb and resource. It also notes that tasks can belong to multiple projects, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like removing a task from a project or adding a task to a section. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose.

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 the default behavior (added to the end of the project) and specifies the optional placement parameters with the constraint 'Use at most one of: section, insert_after, insert_before.' This gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., asana_add_task_to_section) or when not to use this tool, so it's not a 5.

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