Add comment

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

The description discloses that the operation writes to Asana, which is useful for a mutation tool, but with no annotations, it fails to elaborate on permissions, whether comments are appended, or if the operation is reversible. This is a significant transparency gap for a write operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly efficient and appropriately front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description does not mention return values or how opt_fields affects the response. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent may be left uncertain about the outcome format. However, the core purpose is sufficiently covered for an add operation.

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 full documentation for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value. The mention of 'plain-text' is redundant with the schema's own description of the 'text' parameter, keeping this at the baseline.

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 action ('Add a plain-text comment') and target ('Asana task'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_task and update_task, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or when a different tool (e.g., update_task) might be more appropriate, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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