Yougile Tasks

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint, so the description adds meaningful value by labeling each operation as [read] or [write], mentioning soft-delete via deleted=true, and noting that a task's chat id equals the task id. However, it does not disclose side effects such as permission requirements, irreversibility of archive/delete, notifications, or response behavior, leaving parts of the behavioral burden uncovered.

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 structured with a feature summary, an operation list, and a help pointer, which aids scanning. However, it repeats content—list/search and update capabilities appear both in the prose and in the operation enumeration—and mixes English and Russian, adding noise for an agent trying to parse it 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 seven-operation aggregator with no output schema and only openWorldHint, the description supplies operations, read/write access levels, available filters and update fields, and a clear help command. It remains incomplete on return values, exact parameter requirements, and side effects, relying heavily on the external yougile_help tool to fill in 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 has a generic free-form params object with no per-operation field definitions, so the description helps by enumerating likely fields such as columnId, assignedTo, stickerId, title, deleted, timeTracking, and others. It also directs the agent to yougile_help for exact parameters, but types, constraints, and required fields are still absent, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's low effective 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 clearly states that this tool handles YouGile task operations: list/search with filters, get by UUID or number, create, update with specific fields like columnId, deadline, and checklists, plus chat subscribers. It is far more than a tautology and identifies a specific resource and verb set, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling task tools like yougile_task or yougile_create_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 lists operations and instructs the agent to call yougile_help('tasks.<operation>') for parameters, but it gives no guidance on when to use this aggregate tool versus the many sibling tools such as yougile_find_tasks, yougile_update_task, or yougile_task_chat. No exclusions, selection criteria, or alternatives are stated.

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