asana_add_follower

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether duplicate followers are ignored, if special permissions are required, or how the API handles multiple follower GIDs. It merely restates the operation without enriching beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence: 'Add follower(s) to a task.' Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation with a clear purpose, the description plus the schema and annotations provide sufficient information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema is not an issue here, as return details are not critical for such a straightforward add operation. A minor gap is not explaining behavior when adding existing followers, but the idempotentHint annotation partially covers this.

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% and both parameters (task_gid, followers) are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value by clarifying 'follower(s)' matches the anyOf string/array type, but it does not expand on GID formats or usage details beyond what the schema already 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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('follower(s) to a task'), clearly stating what the tool does. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like asana_add_tag or asana_remove_follower by naming 'follower', though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context in which asana_remove_follower or asana_add_tag might be more appropriate. The usage is only implied from the tool name and description.

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