asana_create_task_story

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the required input but does not mention whether this is a write operation requiring permissions, whether the action is reversible, what the response contains, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that directly states the action and a key requirement. No wasted words, and it is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values or at least the effect of the action. It doesn't mention what the response will be, any prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or additional behavior. Given its simplicity, it is not fully complete for an agent to understand the full context of invoking this tool.

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 detailed descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the relationship between text and html_text ('Either text or html_text is required'), which is a semantic constraint not enforced by the schema's required fields. This goes beyond mere repetition.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a comment or story on a task'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like asana_create_task (creates a task) and asana_get_task_stories (retrieves stories). The parenthetical about required input adds clarity without ambiguity.

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 implies the use case: when you need to add a comment or story to a task. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The requirement that text or html_text be provided gives a functional constraint but no comparative guidance.

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