asana_add_to_project

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the option of placing in a section, which is also captured by the section_gid parameter. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as what happens if the task is already in the project, but the idempotent hint suggests safe repetition. No contradiction with 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence ('Fixes: no MCP tool for addProject + section placement.') is a developer-oriented note that adds historical context but is not essential for invoking the tool. Overall, it is concise with minimal waste.

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?

The tool is simple with clear parameters and annotations, but since there is no output schema, the description does not explain what is returned. For a straightforward add-to-project operation, this may be sufficient, but the lack of any mention of return values or error conditions means an agent has to guess the response format.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, with clear descriptions for task_gid, project_gid, and section_gid. The description's mention of 'optionally placing it in a specific section' merely restates the section_gid schema description, adding no extra semantic value 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Add a task to a project') and the optional section placement, distinguishing it from siblings like asana_remove_from_project or asana_add_tag. The verb 'Add' plus the resource 'project' makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage (when adding a task to a project), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'Fixes: no MCP tool for addProject + section placement' line provides some context but is not a clear usage guideline for an agent.

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