asana_set_notes_safe

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

The description reveals a multi-step behavior: writing notes, waiting for a settle period, then re-asserting name and due_on. This is a significant behavioral trait not captured by the annotations (which only indicate idempotent and non-destructive). It also warns about why the delay and re-assertion are needed, giving the agent insight into potential side effects and timing.

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 compact yet information-dense, covering purpose, mechanism, and appropriate usage in fewer than 40 words. The key differentiator (automation survival) is front-loaded, and every clause adds value without redundancy.

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 description adequately explains the tool's workflow and the problem it solves. However, it leaves a slight gap by not explicitly stating that the re-assertion of name and due_on relies on the caller providing these values; if omitted, the tool might not protect existing values. It also doesn't mention what happens if automations take longer than settle_ms. These are minor gaps given the schema provides default/guidance for settle_ms.

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 is 3. The description adds some context around the purpose of name and due_on parameters (they are 'to re-assert after settle'), but this information is already present in the schema descriptions. It does not add significant new meaning beyond linking parameters to the mechanism.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set notes AND survive workspace automations' and explains the mechanism: 'write notes, wait settle_ms, then re-assert name + due_on'. It distinguishes itself from raw notes edits by highlighting the automation-survival behavior, making it identifiable among siblings like asana_set_html_notes or asana_set_dates.

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 explicitly advises 'Use instead of raw notes edits on automated boards', providing a direct comparison to an alternative and specifying the context in which this tool is preferred. The scenario is further clarified by mentioning 'Rules and some integrations' that rewrite task names or parse dates.

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