add_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the transactional nature (all-or-nothing success/failure) and the hierarchical structure handling (including parentId usage for existing tasks). It does not cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic purpose.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core purpose, the second explains hierarchical and parentId usage, and the third discloses transactional behavior. There is no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys essential information.

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 complexity of a batch write operation with hierarchical data and no annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and key behavioral traits like transactionality. However, it lacks details on response format, error cases, or prerequisites (e.g., goal existence), which would be helpful for full contextual understanding.

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 both parameters ('goalId' and 'tasks') and their nested properties thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context by explaining the hierarchical structure and 'parentId' usage, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies, such as format examples or constraints not in the 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 description clearly states the specific action ('Add multiple tasks to a goal') and resource ('tasks'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_goal' (different resource), 'get_tasks' (read vs write), 'complete_task_status' (update vs create), and 'remove_tasks' (delete vs add). It also specifies the hierarchical capability, which further differentiates it.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool: for adding multiple tasks in a batch, including hierarchical structures. It explicitly mentions using 'parentId' for children of existing tasks, which helps differentiate from creating new subtasks within the batch. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using 'create_goal' for goals instead of tasks.

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