add-task-to-project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Add task' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires authentication, what happens on success/failure, if there are rate limits, whether the task is immediately visible, or what the return value looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 at just 7 words, front-loading the essential information ('Add task to a specific Project in Todoist') with zero wasted words. Every element serves a purpose, making it easy to parse quickly while still conveying the core functionality.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after the task is added, what the response looks like, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The presence of sibling tools like 'add-task-to-any-project' creates ambiguity that the description doesn't resolve. For a tool that modifies data, more contextual information is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain format requirements, constraints, or provide examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description contributes no extra value.

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 specific Project in Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'add-task-to-any-project' - both appear to add tasks, so the distinction between 'specific Project' vs 'any project' isn't clarified in the description itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain the relationship with 'add-task-to-any-project' (which appears to be a similar tool), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a project_id from 'get-project-id' or 'get-projects' first. There's no 'when-not' guidance or context about appropriate use cases.

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