Add a task to a project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Add a task to a project' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether the task is moved or appended, what happens if already in a project, or side effects. The schema hints at ordering via 'after' and 'before', but the description does not mention these.

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 very short (one line) but includes extraneous info like 'Tags: Task' and 'POST /tm/tasks/{task_id}/locations' which may be redundant. It is concise but not well-structured for an agent; it could be more informative in the same space.

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 the complexity (2 parameters, nested objects) and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, prerequisites, or the effect of optional parameters like 'boardColumnId'. The agent would lack critical context to use this tool correctly.

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. However, the description only states 'Body: application/json' and does not explain what the body or path parameters mean. While the schema itself contains some inline descriptions, the tool description adds no semantic value beyond that.

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 'Add a task to a project', which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'weeek_create_task' or 'weeek_remove_a_task_from_a_project', so differentiation is lacking.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., task must exist, project must exist) or when not to use it. The usage context is only implied.

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