asana_add_tag

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

Annotations already declare the operation is non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, so the description's 'Add a tag' is consistent and does not contradict them. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., duplicate-tag handling, prerequisites), but the annotation coverage keeps this adequate for a simple operation.

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 states the full action with no filler, and it front-loads the operation word and object. This is an appropriately minimal definition for such a simple tool.

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 two-parameter operation with complete schema descriptions and supporting annotations, the description is essentially complete; an agent knows what to call and with which identifiers. The only notable omission is routing among siblings, but that is covered by the usage dimension.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, and the two parameter names task_gid and tag_gid are self-explanatory alongside their 'GID' descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the exact operation (add), resource (tag), and target (task) in a complete verb+object construction. This naturally separates it from asana_remove_tag and asana_add_follower without requiring schema inspection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling such as asana_remove_tag, asana_add_follower, or asana_set_custom_fields. An agent must infer appropriateness purely from the tool name and the description, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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