Adds a new document to a specified Backlog project. Specify title, content, and optional parent document to organize project documentation.
Adds a new document to the specified project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emoji | No | Emoji for the document | |
| title | No | Title of the document | |
| addLast | No | Add to the end of the list | |
| content | No | Content of the document | |
| parentId | No | Parent document ID | |
| projectId | Yes | Project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It confirms a write operation but says nothing about required permissions, whether the document is created empty, what happens with parentId vs addLast placement, or what the call returns — significant gaps for a mutation tool with six parameters.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the key action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate minimalism.
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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits permissions, side effects, placement semantics of parentId/addLast, and any return information. The 100% schema coverage covers field meanings but not the behavioral context an agent needs.
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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema (emoji, title, addLast, content, parentId, projectId). The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Adds a new document") plus the scoping target ("the specified project"), so an agent can immediately tell it creates a document resource. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling creation tools such as add_wiki or add_project, so sibling disambiguation must come from elsewhere.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is not told when adding a document is preferable to add_wiki or how it relates to get_documents/get_document_tree.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.