Add Task to List

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations by specifying that the operation preserves the home list, effectively making the task a member of both lists. The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, so the description complements rather than contradicts them. However, it does not disclose edge cases like duplicate membership handling, which is a minor gap given the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary verb and object, and it includes only the essential distinction about preserving the home List. No wasteful words or redundant detail.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core semantics and differentiates from the related move tool. The annotations provide the mutation and non-destructive signals, so the description need not restate them. It could mention return values or duplicate behavior, but the combination of annotations and description is sufficient for typical use.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description should compensate. The parameter names task_id and list_id are fairly self-explanatory, and the phrase 'additional List' hints that list_id is the new list to add to. However, the description does not explicitly map parameters or explain any constraints, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 action ('Add a Task to an additional List') and the key behavioral nuance ('preserving its home List'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool move_task_to_list. The verb and resource are specific, and the scope of the operation is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'additional List' and 'preserving its home List' clearly implies the intended use case: when you want a task to appear in multiple lists rather than relocating it. It does not explicitly name the alternative move_task_to_list, but the sibling context makes the distinction apparent, so the guidance is clear without explicit exclusions.

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