Attach a new task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Attach a new task' and the HTTP method POST, implying creation. However, it fails to mention that the request likely requires a body with task properties (e.g., name), which is critical since the schema only includes a path parameter. No details on return values, permissions, or side effects are given.

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 sentence) and front-loaded with the endpoint, which is good for conciseness. However, it omits essential details, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Every sentence should add value; this one adds the endpoint but neglects critical usage instructions.

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 tool's complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the full request structure (likely requiring a task body), contrast with other task attach/create tools, or describe the response. An agent would likely fail to invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 should add meaning to parameters. The description does not explain the 'path' object or its 'id' property. It merely repeats the endpoint. The agent receives no guidance on what 'id' represents (the deal ID) or that additional body parameters might be needed, leaving the schema's minimal type information unsupplemented.

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 'Attach a new task' and provides the endpoint '/crm/deals/{id}/tasks', indicating it attaches a task to a deal. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar attach tools like 'weeek_attach_a_contact' or 'weeek_add_a_task_to_a_project', which could cause confusion. The purpose is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., deal must exist) or context when 'weeek_create_task' or 'weeek_add_a_task_to_a_project' would be more appropriate. There is no exclusionary language or mention of alternatives.

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