taskhub_subproject_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the file side effect (adds mapping to .taskhub.json) and conditional creation behavior. However, it does not mention overwriting behavior, idempotence, mutual exclusivity of projectId/projectName, or failure/conflict handling, which are relevant for a mutating config-mapping 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key side effect and conditional creation behavior. Every sentence 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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, but it leaves ambiguity around whether projectId and projectName are mutually exclusive and what happens if the path is already mapped. These gaps matter because the tool mutates .taskhub.json.

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. The description reinforces the projectId/projectName roles but adds no 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?

The description clearly states a specific action (map a subdirectory), the target resource (TaskHub project/sub-project), and the concrete mechanism (adds mapping to .taskhub.json). It also differentiates this from subproject removal and project creation by covering both existing-project mapping and child-project creation.

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 to attach a subdirectory to an existing TaskHub project, and it will create the project as a child if needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the behavior and sibling names make the intended use obvious.

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