add_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that stale revisions are rejected as conflicts and that dependencies are validated against existing tasks. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or success/failure behavior beyond these points.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then conflict behavior, then parameter shape. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Even with an output schema present, an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions needs more parameter context. The description covers only two parameters, leaving required fields like expected_revision and role under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for task and dependencies, but leaves role, actor_id, expected_revision, plan_id, reason, and priority unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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?

States a specific operation: appending a new task to an already-initialized Plan. The wording distinguishes it from initialize_project and from task-modification siblings like edit_task, update_task, or cancel_task.

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?

Clearly scopes usage to an already-initialized Plan and gives a precondition: dependency targets must already exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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