asana_set_dates

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety behavior. The description adds a crucial non-annotation behavioral detail: due_on must be set before start_on, which is an ordering constraint that affects how the agent invokes the tool. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two brief sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides essential context (fixes and ordering). Every word earns its place; very efficient and easy to parse.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotations, the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly: it explains the purpose, the special reason for its existence, and the critical ordering constraint. Nothing missing.

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 all three parameters (task_gid, due_on, start_on) are documented in the schema. The description adds value by highlighting the dependency between start_on and due_on, which is not evident from the schema field descriptions alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('dates on a task'), explicitly naming both start_on and due_on fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/update operations and other setter tools (e.g., asana_set_custom_fields).

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 clear context by explaining why this tool exists: start_on is not exposed in the official MCP schema, and due_on must be set first. This implies when to use this tool (when you need to set task dates that the standard API doesn't handle), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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