tasks_add

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint — the three-level hierarchy cap — but says nothing about permissions, failure modes when the parent doesn't exist, or what the call returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the hierarchy constraint is packed into parentheses rather than padded into extra clauses.

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 creation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose and placement limits but omits what comes back — the newly created task id — which an agent needs to chain into tasks_link, tasks_move, or tasks_set_status. It also doesn't mention how the 'after' dependency interacts with creation. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 every parameter including 'parent' is documented in the schema itself. The description restates the parent parameter's semantics but contributes no additional format or edge-case detail, making this the expected baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Add a task') and clarifies both placement modes (under a sprint id or a task id). The depth constraint 'sprint > task > subtask' further scopes it and implicitly separates it from tasks_add_sprint, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 clearly establishes when this tool applies (creating a task/subtask under an existing parent) and encodes the max-depth rule as a usage constraint. It stops short of naming alternatives such as tasks_add_sprint for creating sprints, so the agent must infer that routing.

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