asana_add_to_portfolio

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

The annotations include idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which already cover the basic safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation-provided hints, such as how the API handles duplicate additions or what the response contains. Since annotations are present and not contradicted, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from a brief note on usage or parameter specifics. No redundant or extraneous information is present.

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 add-to-portfolio operation with two required parameters and an existing annotations set, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks explicit guidance on the required parameters (e.g., that both portfolio_gid and item_gid must be provided) and does not clarify what types of items are valid beyond 'project/portfolio item.' Given the sibling list includes asana_add_to_project and asana_remove_from_portfolio, a brief note on when to use this tool would improve completeness.

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 50%: 'item_gid' has a description ('Project or portfolio GID to add'), while 'portfolio_gid' has no description. The description text adds 'project/portfolio item' context but does not compensate for the undocumented 'portfolio_gid' parameter. The meaning of 'portfolio_gid' is inferable from the tool name but not explicitly stated in the description or schema.

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 'Add a project/portfolio item to a portfolio' states a specific verb ('Add') and resources ('project/portfolio item' and 'portfolio'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from the sibling asana_remove_from_portfolio, which represents the opposite operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'add' tools (e.g., asana_add_tag, asana_add_follower) beyond the resource name.

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 implies the tool is used when a project or portfolio item needs to be added to a portfolio, but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like asana_add_to_project or asana_remove_from_portfolio. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, though the resource naming ('portfolio') provides some context.

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