asana_set_html_notes

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

Annotations already signal this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds that it fixes an 'XML is invalid' error from the official MCP, which is useful behavioral context. Yet it does not disclose the sanitization behavior or other side effects that the schema's sanitize parameter hints at.

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 two sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a key benefit/differentiator in the second. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition of schema content. It earns a top 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?

The most important selection context—what the tool does and why it exists—is conveyed in two sentences. Combined with rich annotations and 100% schema parameter coverage, an agent can understand how to call it. The omission of any distinction from the similarly named asana_set_notes_safe leaves a small completeness gap, so it doesn't receive a 5.

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 input schema already provides full documentation for all three parameters, including detailed descriptions for sanitize and html_notes. The description adds no parameter-level information. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 clear action: 'Set rich-text notes on a task using html_notes,' identifying both resource and mechanism. The second sentence notes it fixes a known XML error from the official MCP, which adds specific intent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling asana_set_notes_safe, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no explicit 'when to use this vs. other tools' guidance. The XML error caveat implies it is a drop-in for the official MCP, but no alternative sibling tools are named, leaving the selection criterion unclear. This is better characterized as implied usage rather than stated guidelines.

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