planka_add_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Add a task to a card.' without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, or how it handles missing parameters (e.g., card_id fallback behavior is only in the schema). This is minimal and insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load critical information such as required prerequisites or typical usage patterns. Every sentence should earn its place; this one is too vague to be fully helpful.

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?

Considering the complexity of the tool (5 parameters, fallback logic, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain how parameters relate, what happens when card_id vs task_list_id is used, or what the expected return value is. The description is incomplete for an AI agent to use reliably.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Fallback: resolve a task list from this card when task_list_id is not provided'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add a task to a card.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from siblings like planka_create_task_list (creates a list, not a task) and planka_update_task (modifies, not adds). However, it could be more precise about the relationship between tasks, cards, and task lists.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as planka_create_task_list or planka_update_task. No context about prerequisites (e.g., card must exist) or when to avoid using it. The description does not help the agent choose correctly.

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