propose_add_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the two-phase proposal lifecycle (propose then resolve_proposal after user presentation), but omits whether the proposal requires approval, what happens on rejection, or whether it persists — significant gaps for a mutation-adjacent tool.

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 zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the sequencing constraint follows logically.

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 proposal-creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the task concept and the propose/resolve lifecycle. It could go further on what the proposal needs to be actionable, but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, inputs, outputs, task_type, and description. The description adds conceptual framing (what tasks do) but no parameter-level meaning beyond the enum already explained in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Propose adding a new task definition') and defines what a task is ('async functions that produce, transform, or consume record data'), which cleanly separates it from sibling propose_add_record/propose_add_connector/propose_add_binary tools.

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 workflow sequencing ('Present the proposal to the user before calling resolve_proposal') which implies usage, but never states when to choose this tool over the many sibling propose_* variants or what prerequisites exist for adding a task.

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