add_leftover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write/persist operation but says nothing about whether it requires an api_key, whether items persist across runs, how priority affects pickup, or what happens on failure. For a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is concise, though brevity here edges toward under-specification given the schema it must support.

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?

A seven-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions needs strong textual support, yet the description covers none of the parameters and no behavioral or return context. It is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

Seven parameters (agent, api_key, project, priority, source_id, task_type, text) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The role of api_key, source_id, task_type, and default priority is left entirely undefined, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (record) and resource (unfinished item), plus the downstream effect (another agent or next recurring run picks it up). It does not name or distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as handoff, pickup, resume, or claim_subtask, so it falls short of a 5.

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 hints at intent (unfinished work to be picked up later) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not point to alternative siblings like handoff, pickup, or board_add for the same need. An agent has to guess which tool fits.

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