tb_add_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only reveals the basic add action and that the board should already exist; it does not disclose concurrency, idempotency, validation failures, permission requirements, or effects of missing board_id. 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 two short sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with 16 parameters, nested gates and capability objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse. It covers the core purpose but omits essential contextual details such as how gates work, idempotency methods, revision handling, and task creation rules beyond the 'should' note.

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 only 44%, and the text does little to compensate. 'Reference a spec and have acceptance criteria' gives some meaning to spec_ref and acceptance_criteria, but most parameters, including gates, capability, work_unit, expected_board_revision, and coordination_mode, are left without added meaning beyond their names.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Add a task') and target ('an existing board'), which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but 'add' is enough to distinguish from update/claim/query tools.

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 sentence 'Every task should reference a spec and have acceptance criteria' gives useful usage guidance about how tasks should be created. However, it does not explicitly describe when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are exclusions or prerequisites beyond board existence mentioned.

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