weeek_add_task_to_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits permissions/authorization needs, whether the operation is idempotent (what happens on re-adding), what occurs when column is omitted, and what the response looks like. It does disclose one useful trait – that a task can belong to multiple projects – but that is thin for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core behavior and the sibling disambiguation are front-loaded, and every sentence adds information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description adequately covers purpose, routing, and parameter format, but leaves behavioral gaps (permissions, idempotency, column default, result shape) that an agent would need in order to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that project and column accept a name or an id and that column is optional, which adds real meaning beyond the schema types (string|number), but it says nothing about the required id parameter or about default column placement when omitted.

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 action on a specific resource (showing an existing WEEEK task in another project) and the parenthetical '(a task can live in several)' pins down the semantics as multi-project membership rather than a copy. It also names the sibling it is not (weeek_move_task), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Provides a clear use condition (task should appear in an additional project) and an explicit alternative with the selecting condition: use weeek_move_task to move between boards of one project. It does not mention the natural inverse sibling weeek_remove_task_from_project, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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