add-tasks

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

Annotations confirm non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds context by noting collaborator assignment and the ability to add to multiple locations. This complements the structured fields meaningfully.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every word adds value, specifying both action and key capability.

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 complex tool with a rich schema and existing output schema, the description covers the essential use case without over-explaining. It could mention batch limits (already in schema) but overall is sufficiently complete for an add-operation tool.

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 comprehensive per-field descriptions. The tool description offers minimal additional semantic value beyond the schema, only hinting at project/section/parent through the description, which is already encoded in the schema properties.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Add one or more tasks to a project, section, or parent.' It clearly defines the action and scope, and mentions a distinguishing capability ('Supports assignment to project collaborators').

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 when to use it (adding tasks) and references destinations (project, section, parent) that suggest scope, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Clear context without exclusions.

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