task_add

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description needn't restate them. It adds genuinely non-obvious behavior the annotations don't: appending to a closed task silently reopens it, and the exact return shape. It doesn't discuss permissions or failure modes, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and side effect in the first sentence, then layers routing and format rules. Every clause carries content, though the terse, aphoristic phrasing ("a label -- a title, an item's text -- never carries one") is denser than it needs to be for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly supplies the return fields (uid, items, progress, task_state, archived) and the item shape. Combined with the reopen side effect and alternative routing, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only auth/permission prerequisites are 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above that by explaining a meaningful content constraint on the items parameter — that free text may cite another item only via [[#id]], that a label never carries such a reference, and how to refer to a person by item number. That is real semantics the schema's terse "one item per line" does not carry.

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 and resource ("Append items to a task"), plus the exact input granularity (one per line). It also, in the same breath, names what it is not (task_item for existing items, task_note for detail), so an agent can separate it from the sibling task_* tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the precise selection condition ("For work the checklist is missing") and explicitly routes the agent to the correct alternatives with their own conditions: task_item() to move/comment on an existing item, task_note() to add detail. This is explicit when-to-use plus named alternatives, not inference.

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