add-tasks

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral context by noting tasks can be added to projects, sections, or parents, and that assignment to project collaborators is supported. It does not disclose further side effects or prerequisites beyond what the schema already handles.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every phrase adds relevant context without redundant filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The schema and annotations provide rich operational details (all task properties, mutating behavior), and an output schema exists. The description covers the essential scope—where tasks can be added and assignment capability—which is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use this tool. It could mention batch limits or rich features, but those are 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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for every field, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'project, section, or parent' maps directly to projectId, sectionId, and parentId, reinforcing but not extending the schema. The 'assignment to project collaborators' phrase echoes the responsibleUser field's collaborator requirement.

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 a specific action ('Add') on a specific resource ('tasks') with explicit scope: 'to a project, section, or parent.' It also highlights assignment support, distinguishing it from sibling tools that update, complete, or find tasks. This provides a precise purpose.

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 implies the use case of creating new tasks and where they can be placed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update-tasks or manage-assignments. The verb 'Add' gives clear context, so an agent can infer when to use this tool. However, no exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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