asana_add_enum_option

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the operation is known to be a non-destructive write. The description adds no extra behavioral detail such as permission requirements, impact on existing tasks using the field, duplicate-option handling, or side effects. Since the bar is lowered with annotations, but the description adds almost nothing beyond them, a 2 is warranted.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, with a parenthetical clarifying the benefit. There is no filler or redundancy; 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 operation with detailed schema descriptions, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on ordering behavior (insert_after/insert_before), potential conflicts, and the effect of adding an option to a field already in use. These gaps mean the description is adequate but not 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% for all 5 parameters, and each parameter has a basic description (e.g., 'Option label', 'Option GID to insert after'). The tool description itself does not add further parameter semantics, such as how insert_after and insert_before interact or what happens if both are omitted. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 ('Add') and resource ('an option to an existing enum/multi_enum custom field'), and explains the purpose ('extend a dropdown without recreating the field'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like asana_create_custom_field (creating a field) and asana_set_custom_fields (setting field values).

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 clear context: use this when you need to add an option to an existing enum/multi_enum field. It implicitly excludes recreating the field, but does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., asana_create_custom_field) or state when not to use it. The phrase 'existing' and 'without recreating' give solid guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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