Create Task Story

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

Annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the precedence rule for html_text over text, and the return fields (gid, text, created_at, created_by). It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the annotations lower the burden, making this a 4.

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 sentences carry essential information: the action, parameter selection guidance, precedence, and return value. It is front-loaded with 'Add a comment to a task' and wastes no words.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return fields. It also covers the main decision point (text vs html_text). It does not mention potential side effects beyond what annotations imply, but given the schema's exhaustive parameter descriptions and annotation coverage, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the critical precedence rule ('html_text is used and text is ignored') which is not present in any parameter description, and clarifies the return object's fields. This goes beyond the schema's already detailed parameter docs.

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 begins with 'Add a comment to a task,' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like asana_get_task_stories (read) and asana_update_task (modify task fields). The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 explicit guidance on choosing between text and html_text, including precedence behavior ('If both are given, html_text is used and text is ignored'). It implies the usage context (adding a comment) but does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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