backlog_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that this is a write that lands a note in the task folder plus the expected shape of each field. It does not cover failure modes, duplicate handling, or whether an existing note is overwritten, which are meaningful gaps for a write tool. Return values are not a gap because an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the WRITE marker and a clear purpose clause, then parameters, then timing guidance — a sensible ordering with no filler. It is dense to the point of being a single run-on with semicolons and parentheticals, which slightly hurts scannability.

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 five-parameter write tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, every parameter, and the lifecycle handoff to set_status, and the output schema covers returns. What remains uncovered is edge behavior such as duplicate titles or validation failures, which keeps 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 coverage is 0% and there are no enums in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does for all five parameters: area accepts a stem or [[stem]], line is 'one line saying what and why', priority is constrained to urgent/high/medium/low, and source is 'who said it and when, or a sha'. This adds real meaning the bare schema does not.

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 — 'files an idea as a backlog note in the task folder' — and the 'WRITE' prefix immediately separates it from read-oriented siblings like backlog, search, and read_file. The closing clause about status becoming active further distinguishes this creation step from set_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?

'Call it the moment something is deferred, in so many words or in passing' gives an explicit, actionable trigger rather than a vague suggestion. It also names the alternative path for later stages — 'picking the idea up later is setting its status to active' — routing the agent to set_status instead of re-adding.

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