weeek_add_task_to_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses the key behavioral trait that a task can exist in multiple projects, which is non-obvious and helpful. However, it doesn't mention what happens if the task is already in the project, whether membership is idempotent, or if any permission is required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the behavioral disclosure is thin but the multi-project property is valuable context.

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 sentences, each earning its place. The first states the action and a key behavioral nuance; the second adds the optional parameter context. No filler or redundancy. Very 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?

This is a relatively simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects. The key context—that tasks can live in multiple projects—is captured, and the optional board column targeting is explained. For a low-complexity mutation tool, this description is reasonably complete, though it could note the counterpart tool for removal or that adding to a project is non-destructive to existing memberships.

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. The description maps board_column_id to 'target a board column there', which adds meaning beyond the bare type info. However, it says nothing about what task_id and project_id mean semantically beyond their names, which are fairly self-explanatory. The description adds modest value over the zero-coverage schema.

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?

The verb 'Put' is weak but the description is specific: adding a task to a project with optional board column targeting. It distinguishes from weeek_remove_task_from_project and weeek_move_task (which implies moving between locations, whereas this adds membership). The parenthetical that a task can live in several projects adds useful scoping that differentiates from a move.

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's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the parenthetical '(a task can live in several)' implies this is for adding membership rather than moving, which indirectly distinguishes from weeek_move_task. But no alternatives are named, and no context is given for when to choose this over moving a task or removing it from a project. Implied usage only.

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