Create Project Status

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

The description states that it 'Returns the created status object,' which is useful behavioral information not covered by the annotations. It also adds context about the health check-in. The annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, and the description aligns with these.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only relevant details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the user what to expect ('Returns the created status object'). Combined with the fully self-documenting schema and annotations, the description is complete for this simple creation tool. It also fits well within the broader sibling-tool context.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a minor reinforcement about the 'color' parameter ('Use color to visually signal project health'), but this largely repeats the schema's enum descriptions. No significant new meaning is added.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Create a new status update for a project' with specific detail about it being the health check-in shown in the status tab. This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like asana_get_project_status and asana_delete_project_status.

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 that this tool is for creating status updates, and even provides guidance on using the 'color' parameter. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the action of 'Create' is unambiguous enough to infer usage.

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