hub_task_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It merely says 'Add a task' without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or return format. The added context 'shared cross-project backlog' clarifies scope but not behavior.

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, front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word contributes. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 10 parameters, a write operation, and no annotations or output schema, a single sentence is insufficient to fully orient the agent. The rich schema descriptions help, but the description omits usage conditions, return behavior, and relationship to sibling task tools.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides; per rubric, high coverage yields a baseline of 3.

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 — 'Add a task' — with a clear resource ('shared cross-project backlog'), distinguishing it from read/update task siblings like hub_task_list, hub_task_get, and hub_task_update. The scope is explicit and not generic.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions are mentioned, and sibling tools are not referenced. The single sentence provides only the core action without context for selection.

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