add_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait — section matching is case-insensitive against live headers — but says nothing about what happens if the section does not exist, where the task is inserted within the section, or whether the write is additive/reversible.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the matching rule front-loaded immediately after the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves failure modes, insertion position, and four parameters entirely undocumented.

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% across 5 parameters, and the description only touches 'section' (case-insensitive matching). The required 'text' and the optional due, link, and priority fields get no explanation of format or expected values anywhere.

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 ('Add a task') and names the target file and container ('under an existing section in Tasks.md'). It is clear enough to distinguish from get_tasks and list_task_sections, but it does not explicitly position itself against sibling write tools like append_log or capture_thought.

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 usage by requiring an existing section, but never states when to reach for add_task versus append_log, capture_thought, or write_note. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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