add_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation ('Add') but does not explain side effects, idempotency, or what 'project context' means. The word 'active' also conflicts with the schema's status options, adding confusion about the operation's 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 a single short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the key action. However, the word 'active' is potentially unnecessary and could mislead, so it is not maximally effective.

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?

Despite having six parameters and an output schema, the description provides only the most basic context. It does not explain what 'project context' entails, how status interacts with 'active', or the purpose of the optional parameters. The output schema lessens the need for return-value documentation, but overall the description is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; it merely rephrases the action without elaborating on how the parameters (path, notes, branch, status) relate to the 'project context'.

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 clear verb ('Add') and resource ('task') with a specific scope ('to the project context'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'create_task' or 'add_to_context_list', and the modifier 'active' is ambiguous given the schema allows a 'completed' status.

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 such as 'create_task' or 'add_to_context_list'. It neither mentions exclusions nor suggests appropriate contexts, leaving the agent without decision support.

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