add-task-to-any-project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Add' operation (implying creation/mutation) but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when adding tasks to different project types. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal language to convey the basic function. While perhaps too minimal, it achieves maximum efficiency in word count.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after task creation, what the response looks like, error conditions, or how this differs from the similar sibling tool. The agent lacks necessary context to use this tool effectively.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain format expectations, constraints, or usage patterns for the parameters.

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 action ('Add task') and target resource ('to a any Project in Todoist'), providing specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'add-task-to-project' - the only difference appears to be the word 'any' which doesn't clarify functional distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the similar 'add-task-to-project' sibling tool. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to guess about tool selection.

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