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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create a comment on a task' and does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, return values, or error behavior for this mutating 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 a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. The key action and target are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter create operation, the description plus schema cover the inputs needed to invoke the tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits any indication of the response or side effects, leaving it short of fully complete.

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%, and the schema already documents task_id and content, including that content supports HTML. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 'Create a comment on a task' uses a specific verb and resource, making the operation immediately clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools such as list_comments and create_task. No ambiguity remains about what resource is affected.

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 only states what the tool does; it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_comments. Usage context is implied by the verb 'Create' and the task target, but there are no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the creation action and does not mention side effects, permission requirements, behavior on duplicate names, return values, or error conditions.

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 one concise sentence with no redundant content. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 low complexity and complete parameter schema, the basics are covered. Yet the absence of any note about the return value, success/error behavior, or required workspace context leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer or discover.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter-level meaning.

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 verb (create), a resource (folder), and a location (in a workspace). This directly differentiates it from sibling tools like update_folder, delete_folder, and list_folders.

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 use case is implied by the action itself: an agent should call this when a new folder needs to be created. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or any prerequisites such as the workspace needing to exist.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a label is created, a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, idempotency, or behavior if a label with the same name already exists. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating 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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and object. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation, though it sacrifices explanatory depth.

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 create operation with fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient, but the absence of usage routing, behavioral notes, and output information leaves gaps that annotations would normally fill. An agent can infer the basic call from the schema, but the description alone does not provide a complete picture.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond what is already documented. It only reinforces the workspace context, which meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('label') scoped to a workspace, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_label and delete_label. There is no ambiguity about what action is performed or what object is affected.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_label or delete_label, nor does it mention conditions like label existence or required prerequisites. Usage is implied only by the verb, with no explicit context or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that a list is created, but does not mention side effects, permissions required, whether the workspace must exist, or what response is returned. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing zero waste. It communicates the core function efficiently.

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 and the schema fully covers parameters, but the lack of annotations and absence of return-value or behavioral details leave gaps. An agent can invoke the tool correctly based on schema, but not fully anticipate outcomes or preconditions.

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 fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'create' and the resource 'list' in a workspace, making the tool's function unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_task and create_folder by naming the specific resource type, but does not explicitly differentiate from update_list or delete_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_list or create_folder. No context is provided about prerequisites, when not to use the tool, or relationships to other list-related operations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and adds a meaningful authorization requirement: owner or admin role. It does not mention duplicate-name behavior, return value, or other side effects beyond the act of creating, which are minor omissions.

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?

One front-loaded sentence communicates the action, resource, scope, and permission requirement with no wasted words. The role constraint is parenthesized so it does not distract from the primary purpose.

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?

With full parameter schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides the essential action, scope, and authorization needed to invoke the tool correctly. It omits what the response looks like and duplicate-name handling, but these are not necessary for correct invocation.

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 fully documents all parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond clarifying that the status is created within a workspace, so it does not exceed 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?

States the specific verb 'Create', the resource 'status', and the scope 'in a workspace', with an additional role constraint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_status, delete_status, and list_statuses.

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 phrase 'Create a new status' clearly signals the intended use case, and the sibling tool names imply that update/delete/list operations belong elsewhere. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context, such as list_id determining the workspace automatically, but it does not disclose return values, error behavior, permission requirements, or the fact that the task will be immediately visible. For a mutation tool, this leaves notable gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then expands into conditional prerequisite guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this many optional parameters.

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 description is helpful for the main workflows but lacks output and error information. Since there is no output schema, an agent does not know what the tool returns on success (e.g., a created task object with an ID). Given the tool's complexity and absence of annotations, a bit more behavioral context would be needed for full completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining how list_id determines the workspace, and by recommending specific lookup tools (list_members, list_custom_fields) for assignee_ids and custom_fields. This adds semantic relationships that the schema alone does not convey.

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, 'Create a new task in a list', with a clear resource and scope. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_task, update_task, and delete_task because it is the only creation action for tasks.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and prerequisite workflows: it tells the agent to call list_lists if given a list name, list_statuses for status options, list_members for assignee IDs, and list_custom_fields for custom field IDs. This clearly routes the agent through the correct sequence before invoking the tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive action, but the description does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related items, or whether any special permissions are required.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word earns its place, which is ideal for a simple single-parameter tool.

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 and the parameter is fully covered by the schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no details about the effects of deletion or the response format, it leaves clear gaps for an agent invoking a destructive 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 documents the only parameter, folder_id ('The folder ID'), with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter, so it provides no value beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('folder'), with the parameter 'by ID' making the intended operation unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from folder-related siblings like create_folder, update_folder, and list_folders.

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 usage is implied: this tool is for deleting a folder by its ID. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions, but no alternative delete-folder sibling exists in the provided list.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the destructive nature via 'Delete' and adds an important permission constraint, but it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, cascades to tasks using the label, or requires additional safeguards.

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?

A single sentence states the action, the identifier, and the role requirement with no filler. The key information is front-loaded 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?

For a simple one-parameter destructive operation, the description gives the action, parameter, and authorization prerequisite, which is enough to select and invoke the tool. It omits side effects, but those are not strictly required for the call.

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 label_id parameter is already documented; the description's 'by ID' adds no new semantic detail. It correctly aligns with the parameter but doesn't go beyond 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?

Description states the exact operation — delete a label — with the identifying key (by ID) and the required role. This clearly distinguishes it from label-related siblings like create_label, update_label, and list_labels.

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?

It communicates the prerequisite (owner or admin role) but does not say when to prefer delete_label over alternatives or mention any conditions against use. Usage context is implied by the action name rather than explicitly guided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' makes the destructive nature clear, but the description does not state whether deletion is permanent, whether permissions are required, or whether dependent data like tasks or comments is removed. This is a meaningful gap for a destructive 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter operation, though its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and usage context.

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 and the schema covers the only parameter, so a one-line description is nearly sufficient for basic invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not disclose return behavior, error semantics, or side effects, leaving clear contextual gaps.

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 fully documents the single required parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by ID' only restates the purpose of list_id and adds no extra meaning such as ID format, source, or constraints.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a list'), making the core purpose immediately clear and distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_task or delete_folder. It does not add scope or variant context, but the delete-list intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_list or delete_folder, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and brief description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the role requirement and the reassign-to precondition, which go beyond the schema. It does not explicitly mention permanence or failure behavior, but the core destructive behavior is clear.

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?

Two short sentences, with the main action first and no filler. Every clause adds useful information: the operation, the role requirement, and the conditional reassignment guidance.

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 two-parameter delete operation, the description covers the action, the role gate, and the key conditional parameter. It lacks explicit mention of permanence or error responses, but the schema and description together are mostly sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, and both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the reassign_to condition but adds little new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('status'), and a scope ('by ID'), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like create_status, update_status, and list_statuses.

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 usage context: delete a status by ID, and provides conditional guidance to include reassign_to when tasks use the status. It also states the owner/admin role prerequisite, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' signals mutation, but the description does not state that deletion is irreversible, whether related resources are affected, or whether special permissions are required.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and the required identifier.

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 one-parameter CRUD tool, this is minimally adequate: the action and required input are clear. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out broader context such as reversibility, permissions, and side effects.

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 fully documents task_id as a required string, so the description adds little beyond the phrase 'by ID'. The schema covers 100% of parameters, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('task'), and the identifier needed ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task, update_task, create_task, and delete_folder.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or edge cases. The intended usage is only implied by the tool's name and the verb 'Delete'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only retrieval operation, and the description states what data is included. However, it does not explicitly say there are no side effects, nor does it mention error behavior or permissions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and target, then adds a relevant detail about custom_fields. Every word earns its place and there is no 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: it fetches a specific task's full details and explicitly calls out the custom_fields array. It could be more explicit about the full return shape, but the low complexity of this tool makes the current description sufficient.

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 schema already documents task_id with 100% coverage, so the description's 'by ID' adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('task'), and a specific selection mechanism ('by ID'), while also highlighting the custom_fields array. This clearly distinguishes it from list_tasks and other sibling tools without needing extra context.

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 a client has a task_id and needs full details for that single task. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it does not earn a 5, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates a read-only retrieval operation, but it does not mention return format, error behavior, permissions, or what 'details' includes. This is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly efficient for an agent 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?

For a single-parameter, side-effect-free lookup, the description is sufficient for an agent to select the tool and provide the required workspace_id. It does not enumerate return fields, but no output schema exists and the word 'details' reasonably implies the workspace object. A brief mention of the return shape would make it fully complete.

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% and the workspace_id parameter is already documented as 'The workspace ID'. The description's 'by ID' merely reinforces the schema rather than adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workspace') and further qualifies it with 'specific... by ID', making it unambiguous. It also distinguishes this from list_workspaces and get_task without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for retrieving one known workspace, and the sibling list_workspaces suggests the alternative for fetching multiple workspaces. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, so usage guidance is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all comments' does convey a read-only operation and indicates scope to a single task, but it does not mention ordering, pagination, visibility of deleted/private comments, or return format.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation with one parameter.

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 with one required parameter and no nested objects, so a short description is acceptable. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not clarify the shape of the returned comments or list behavior, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 describes task_id as 'The task ID', so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('comments') and clearly scopes the operation to a task. It is evident from the name and description that this is distinct from sibling tools like create_comment or list_tasks, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tasks or get_task, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The only usage signal is the purpose statement itself, leaving routing to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly identifies the operation as read-only listing, describes the response contents, and adds useful scope-related context about task responses. It does not mention auth or pagination, but those are not strongly implied by this simple one-parameter list 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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second details the return shape, and the third connects the tool to usage in other operations. No filler 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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it names the returned fields, explains scoping behavior, and gives downstream usage context. There are no hidden nested objects or enums to document, and the operation is simple enough that the absence of pagination or error details is not a significant gap.

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 covers the only parameter, workspace_id, with a description and 100% coverage. The tool description merely references 'a workspace' without adding new meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or relationship to other resources, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all custom fields defined in a workspace') and enumerates the exact returned attributes. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_statuses and list_labels by naming the unique resource type.

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 concrete usage guidance by telling the agent to use field IDs when setting custom_fields in create_task or update_task. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but there is no competing custom-field sibling tool, so the guidance is sufficient.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List all folders' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose the return format, pagination behavior, ordering, permissions needed, or error 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 clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is too terse to convey additional behavioral or usage context.

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 one-parameter list operation with no output schema and no annotations, this is minimally viable. The core purpose and required parameter are clear, but the missing return value contract and pagination/error behavior are notable gaps.

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%, and the schema already documents workspace_id as 'The workspace ID'. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond confirming the workspace scope.

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 verb ('List'), a specific resource ('folders'), and a scope ('in a workspace'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on tasks, lists, comments, statuses, labels, members, or workspaces.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_lists or list_tasks. There are no conditions, exclusions, or explicit routing signals.

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

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

With no annotations, the description itself must convey behavior; it does indicate a read-only listing action, full scope ('all labels'), and alphabetical ordering. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or any permission requirements, so transparency is partial rather than complete.

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?

One compact sentence delivers the action, resource, scope, and ordering with no filler. The key discriminators are front-loaded and every word contributes.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description is adequate for invocation: it names the required workspace scope and the expected output type. But with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return-value structure, pagination, and any access caveats, leaving an agent to infer details.

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 fully documents the single workspace_id parameter with the description 'The workspace ID,' and schema coverage is 100%. The description's phrase 'in a workspace' adds only a minor contextual link to the parameter, not meaningful semantic detail beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('labels') and scope ('in a workspace'), and adds the ordering detail 'alphabetically.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_label or list_statuses by naming the exact resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar list_* tools.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_statuses, list_custom_fields, or list_members. The intended use is only implied by the resource name 'labels,' with no stated conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation and the folder-filtering behavior, but it does not disclose response shape, pagination, ordering, or any authorization constraints.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a low-complexity listing tool with a well-documented schema and no output schema; the required workspace_id and optional folder_id are clear. However, absent annotations, it would be stronger to state explicitly that this is read-only and to clarify pagination or list-size expectations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description only restates the workspace scope and folder filtering without adding format, defaults, or relationship details beyond what the schema already says.

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 verb 'List' names the action, 'all lists in a workspace' names resource and scope, and 'filtered by folder' adds an option. This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like list_folders (folders) and list_tasks (tasks).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool is referenced. The optional folder filter is a parameter detail rather than a selection rule.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states what the tool returns ('member IDs, names, roles, and avatars') and implies a read-only listing operation. It does not discuss pagination or error behavior, but for a simple list tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The action and resource come first, followed by return values and a practical use case, all in a compact and scannable form.

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 single-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, scope, return fields, and intended usage. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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%: the only parameter, workspace_id, is described as 'The workspace ID.' The description adds workspace context but no new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all members of a workspace'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also enumerates the returned data (IDs, names, roles, avatars), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_tasks or list_workspaces.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Use this to resolve member names to IDs before assigning users to tasks.' This provides clear context, though it does not spell out when not to use it or name alternative tools explicitly.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates a read-only listing operation and reveals the 'ordered by position' behavior, but it does not mention return format, authentication needs, or any further behavioral nuances. This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and the ordering detail follows naturally. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states exactly what is listed, the scope, and the ordering. A minor gap is that it does not describe the shape or fields of the returned statuses, but the tool's simplicity makes this non-critical.

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% for the single parameter, so the schema already fully documents workspace_id. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but none is necessary given the parameter is self-explanatory. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all statuses in a workspace'), and adds an explicit ordering detail ('ordered by position'). It clearly identifies what the tool does and is easily distinguished from sibling status-related tools such as create_status, update_status, and delete_status.

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: use this tool to list statuses scoped to a workspace. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but given its straightforward listing purpose and the obvious sibling operations, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content (task titles with IDs) and the custom_fields array, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, permissions, or error behavior, leaving notable gaps for a list 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?

Three sentences with the main action front-loaded. The second and third sentences add useful output/use-case detail without introducing fluff, though the final sentence overlaps somewhat with the second one.

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 no output schema, the description partially addresses return values (titles, IDs, custom fields) and the tool's complexity is low (2 params, no nested objects). Missing pagination/details on response fields prevent a 5, but it is adequately complete for the intended lookup/search use cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both workspace_id and list_id. The description's 'optionally filtered by list' merely restates what the schema says, adding no new semantic detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List all tasks in a workspace, optionally filtered by list.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_task (singular retrieval), create/update/delete mutations, and list_lists (lists resource). No ambiguity about the tool's core operation.

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?

Provides clear use contexts: 'useful for finding task_id when users provide task names' and 'Can be used to search for tasks by filtering results in-memory by title/description.' It doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternatives, so a 5 is not warranted.

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

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 clearly states the operation is a listing, scopes it to the API key owner's workspaces, and mentions alphabetical ordering. It could further specify return schema or pagination, but for a zero-parameter list tool this is strong transparency.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the IMPORTANT guidance is clearly separated and emphasized. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero-parameter, low-complexity tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, how results are ordered, and how to act on them. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit instruction to find workspace IDs from the results.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document. The description compensates by explaining the key output usage — the workspace IDs to be used in subsequent calls. This meets the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces'), with a precise scope: those belonging to the API key owner. It also adds ordering detail ('alphabetically by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_workspace or list_tasks.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: first, when users provide workspace names instead of IDs. It also instructs how to proceed afterward, using the resulting workspace ID in other tools like list_tasks and create_task. This is concrete, actionable guidance.

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

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 only signals that this is a mutation operation; it does not mention whether updates are partial, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the update is idempotent, or what happens after a successful update.

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 brief and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. It omits critical behavioral and contextual details that an agent needs, so the brevity does not earn credit as effective structure.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, this description is incomplete. It would be sufficient only if all important behavior were obvious from the schema, but the schema does not explain update semantics or side effects.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter relationships or behaviors, so the baseline score 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 'Update an existing folder' essentially restates the tool name with no additional detail. It identifies the verb and resource but does not indicate what fields can be updated, how updates behave, or how this tool differs from create_folder or delete_folder.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use update_folder instead of create_folder, delete_folder, or other update tools among the siblings, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and schema alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add the meaningful authorization requirement (owner or admin), which is beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether unspecified fields are cleared, or what the response contains. That leaves important behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. Each element earns its place: the action, the existing-label scope, and the role requirement. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 and the schema is complete, so an agent can construct a basic valid request. However, with no output schema and no mention of behavior when only some fields are provided, the description is not fully self-sufficient for an agent deciding whether to send a partial update. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 three parameters (name, color, label_id). The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics such as optionality, partial-update behavior, or validation rules. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 verb and resource: 'Update an existing label.' It differentiates from create_label and delete_label via 'existing,' and the resource 'label' distinguishes it from update_task, update_folder, and update_status. However, it stays close to the tool name and does not elaborate on what aspects of the label can be updated.

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 role requirement ('requires owner or admin role') is a useful explicit precondition, and 'existing label' implies this is not for creating or deleting. But there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over create_label, delete_label, or list_labels, nor any comparison with sibling update_* tools. Usage context is mostly implied rather than stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only signals that the tool mutates a list, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, whether unspecified fields are preserved, failure behavior, or what happens on invalid IDs.

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 brief, but the brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It repeats the tool name and provides no useful front-loaded context, additional structure, or decision-relevant details.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, a single tautological sentence is insufficient. While the schema covers parameter names and types, the description does not explain behavioral outcomes, return values, or side effects, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool confidently.

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 all five parameters already have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Update an existing list' restates the tool name 'update_list' with no additional information. 'Existing' is already implied by the verb 'update', and the description does not say what aspects of a list can be changed or how it differs from sibling update tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_list, delete_list, update_folder, or update_task. The phrase 'existing list' weakly implies it is not for creation, but no explicit context, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the owner/admin role requirement and that the status must already exist. However, it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, whether changes are reversible, or what side effects may occur.

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 with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the important role requirement is appended parenthetically without unnecessary elaboration.

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 CRUD update tool with a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the action, targets existing statuses, and gives the permission prerequisite. However, it lacks guidance about partial updates, expected result, or behavioral side effects, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 explains all six parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for a fully documented 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 uses a specific verb and resource — "Update an existing status" — and the word "existing" helps distinguish it from create_status. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the action is clear enough to identify the tool's role.

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 use only for statuses that already exist and states the role requirement, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_status or delete_status, nor does it mention any alternative tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool updates an existing task, and mentions custom field support, but it does not explain partial-update semantics, whether unspecified fields are preserved, required permissions, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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, front-loaded sentence. It states the main purpose first, then adds the most relevant extra detail (custom_fields and its prerequisite) without wasted words.

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 schema is rich and covers all parameters, so the description does not need to re-explain them. But for a tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits return behavior and update semantics (merge vs replace). It is adequate for invocation but not fully complete in context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by instructing the agent to call list_custom_fields to obtain valid custom field IDs first, which is a useful workflow hint not present in the schema. It also points directly to the custom_fields parameter as a distinguishing capability.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing task.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_task, get_task, list_tasks, and delete_task. The additional mention of custom_fields support further clarifies a unique capability.

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 phrase 'existing task' sets clear context for when this tool applies, implicitly excluding creation and deletion. It also gives a specific prerequisite: use list_custom_fields to resolve field IDs before passing custom_fields. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude cases where other update tools might be preferred.

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