asana_add_field_to_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the API method and optional positioning/importance behavior, but does not disclose side effects beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction found.

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 action and pairing context are front-loaded, and every clause serves a 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?

For a simple attachment operation with strong annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), the description is nearly complete. It doesn't mention return values, but no output schema exists and the success/failure behavior is not critical for such a low-risk call. The pairing context covers the main use case.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description mentions 'optionally important/positioned' which maps to is_important/insert_before/insert_after but adds no substantive meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb ('Attach'), a resource ('existing custom field'), and a target ('project'), and names the underlying API method. The pairing hint with asana_create_custom_field clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like asana_remove_field_from_project.

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 context by mentioning it pairs with asana_create_custom_field to build a board, implying when to use this tool in a workflow. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the pairing gives enough situational guidance for most agents.

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