add-work-order-task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Add a task' (mutation) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, permission requirements, or what happens on success/failure. The confirmation instruction is about user interaction, not tool behavior.

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 sentences: first concisely states purpose, second provides a critical warning. No wasted words; it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 mutation nature and 6 parameters, the description is minimal. It lacks context about return values, required user roles, or what happens after adding (e.g., status updates). The confirmation instruction adds value, but overall completeness is adequate but not rich.

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 100%, so the schema documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per rubric, baseline is 3 for high coverage.

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 work order', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like create-work-order (creates a work order) and update-work-order-task (updates an existing 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?

The description includes 'ALWAYS confirm with user before calling', which is a strong usage guideline for safety. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-work-order-tasks or update-work-order-task, nor does it provide exclusions.

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