Append new items to an existing task, one per line, and reopen it if closed. Returns keys assigned to new items and updated progress.
Append items to a task, one per line; a closed task reopens.
Returns the keys the new items got, and the progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | ||
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose two meaningful behaviors: items are appended rather than replacing (one per line) and a closed task reopens — an important side effect. It still omits permissions, ordering, and whether duplicate items are deduplicated, so it is partial rather than complete.
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 tight, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary action leads and the return value follows. Slightly terse terms like 'keys' and 'progress' go undefined, which costs a point but the structure is efficient.
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 description covers input format, the reopen side effect, and return values in place of a missing output schema, which is decent for a two-parameter tool. It still leaves the uid parameter and any sibling differentiation unaddressed.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'items' parameter format ('one per line,' implying a newline-separated string), which the bare schema does not, but leaves 'uid' entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Append items to a task,' and adds the notable qualifier that a closed task reopens. It is clear what the tool does, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like task, task_item, or task_comment.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives. An agent choosing between task_add, task_item, and task_comment gets no routing help, only a description of mechanics once the tool is already selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.