add_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states a generic 'adds' action. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether this modifies the task permanently), the role of the 'dry_run' parameter, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation-type tool.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core operation. It contains no fluff, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no visible output schema details), the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, side effects, or the significance of optional parameters like 'dry_run' or 'base'. An agent would lack essential context to invoke this tool correctly and safely.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It partially clarifies that 'project' is a config name, but it ignores the other five parameters (base, branch, dry_run, product_root, task) entirely, leaving them ambiguous. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid calls.

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 ('adds') and the resource ('a project to an existing task'), with the scope of adding by config name. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_task or list_projects, as it specifically targets adding to an existing task.

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 implies the tool is used to associate a project with an existing task, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context of 'existing task' offers some usage signal, but lacks the detail needed for clear decision-making.

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