Runn: add workstream to project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the call is a POST with no body and that it should be done once, adding valuable context. However, it does not mention what happens if the workstream is already attached, error responses, or permission requirements.

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 deliver the action, endpoint, no-body requirement, and usage guidance without 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?

For a simple two-parameter association operation, the description is largely complete: it explains purpose, endpoint, no body, and sequencing. It could be more complete with error/duplicate behavior, but the lack of an output schema and simple parameters make this adequate.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the endpoint template '/projects/{projectId}/project-workstreams/{workstreamId}/' in the description maps the two parameters to path positions, clarifying their roles. It also states 'existing workstream' and 'before allocating assignments' to convey the workflow context. More explicit per-parameter details would elevate it further.

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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('existing workstream to a project'), includes the HTTP endpoint, and clearly differentiates from siblings like 'remove_project_workstream' or 'create_workstream'.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Do this once per workstream/project before allocating assignments or actuals on that workstream.' This provides clear usage context and a sequencing constraint. It does not name alternatives or explicit 'when not' cases, so not a 5.

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