asana_create_project_status

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

Annotations already cover the basic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as side effects (e.g., notifications, story creation), authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a succinct parameter note. It front-loads the action and avoids any filler, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks usage context, behavioral nuance, and any explanation of expected outcomes or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 the baseline for parameter semantics is 3. However, the description states 'text required', which directly contradicts the input schema's required fields (only project_gid and status_type are required). This misleading information reduces the score.

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 states a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('status update to a project'), clearly indicating the action. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'asana_update_project' or 'asana_list_project_statuses', but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or conditions. It simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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