Add comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly states 'This operation writes to Asana,' which correctly indicates a mutating operation. However, it does not elaborate on additional behavioral aspects such as permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond the write action.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that immediately state the action and the write nature. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or extraneous 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?

For a simple, well-scoped tool, the description plus schema cover the essential inputs and operation. It does not describe the return value, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema, but the tool's purpose and parameters are complete. The shortfall is minor, so a score of 4 is warranted.

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 all parameters (text, task_gid, opt_fields). The description's mention of 'plain-text' restates the schema's text description without adding further semantic value. Therefore, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add a plain-text comment to an Asana task.' It uses a specific verb ('add'), identifies the resource ('comment to Asana task'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task or update_task, which handle different operations.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (when wanting to add a comment to a task), though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is straightforward and unambiguous.

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