asana_triage_inbox

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses per-item override precedence, default_assignee fallback behavior, partial-failure continuation, and the per-item created/failed summary with permalinks. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to anticipate the tool's side effects and return value.

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 and front-loaded with the composite purpose. Each subsequent clause contributes operational value: override precedence, fallback behavior, failure continuation, and output summary. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the annotations.

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 composite bulk-create tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, override rules, failure handling, and return summary. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 meaningful cross-parameter semantics by stating that per-item project/assignee/section/due override the defaults and by clarifying the default_assignee fallback chain, which is not fully apparent from individual schema fields 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'bulk-create tasks from a triaged list in ONE call.' It also identifies the gap it fills ('no bulk CREATE existed'), which distinguishes it from single-task creation and batch-update siblings.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: after the model reads the inbox/note, extracts items, and needs to create them in bulk. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the composite framing and gap statement make the intended usage direction clear.

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