Attach custom field to project or portfolio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool makes a field 'available' but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether re-attachment is allowed, permission requirements, or impact if the field is already attached). These gaps leave an AI agent uncertain about the operation's effects.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that conveys the core functionality immediately. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.

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 tool with 6 parameters, a required one, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the logical relationship between project_gid and portfolio_gid (e.g., that one is required, or what happens if both are given). It also omits what the result looks like, leaving the agent without a complete picture.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. Each parameter has a clear description in the schema (e.g., 'Asana gid, use asana_find'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not contradict or confuse. It adequately supports the schema.

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: attaching an existing custom field to a project or portfolio. The verb 'attach' and resource 'custom field' are specific, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like 'custom_field_create' (creates new fields) or 'asana_list_custom_fields' (lists fields).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not explain that this tool is for attaching an already-existing field, while 'custom_field_create' is for creating a new one. No when-not or context cues are given.

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