add_task_datatag

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates 'add', but does not explain whether a new comment is created, whether existing data is overwritten, what permissions are required, or any resulting side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the action verb and target, making it efficient. Although it lacks detail, conciseness is about avoiding waste, which it achieves.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested arrays) and an output schema, the one-sentence description is incomplete. It fails to explain the data tag concept, the relationship between customFieldData and dataTag, or whether a new comment is created. The agent would have to rely entirely on schema hints and sibling tool names to infer usage.

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?

The schema descriptions already cover 100% of the parameters, including id as the task number, items as data tag entries, and dataTag as the tag reference. The description adds little beyond a vague reference to 'additional field value', so it does not compensate beyond the baseline schema coverage.

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 description states a specific action and resource: adding an additional field value to a new task comment. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like add_task_datatag_to_comment, which target existing comments. However, it uses the vague term 'additional field' rather than 'data tag' or 'items', leaving some ambiguity about the exact data structure involved.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives such as add_task_comment or add_task_datatag_to_comment, nor does it describe prerequisites or exclusions.

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