add-tasks

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by stating that task assignment is limited to project collaborators, which is a behavioral constraint not fully detailed in the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded, and contains no wasted words. Every phrase adds necessary context.

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 high schema coverage and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate. It covers the tool's core functionality and constraints, though it could mention the batch size limit of 25 tasks, but that is detailed in the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description paraphrases the assignment capability but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Thus, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Add', the resource 'tasks', and the context 'to a project, section, or parent', with an additional capability of assignment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update-tasks or complete-tasks.

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 specifies when to use (adding tasks) and implies not for other operations. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the purpose is unambiguous.

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