add-tasks

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

Annotations already communicate that the operation is mutating, non-idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds a useful behavioral constraint around assignment to project collaborators, but does not go further into side effects, validation, or failure modes. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage, though not particularly rich.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and target, then adds the most relevant capability. There is no filler or repetition of what the schema already states.

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?

The tool has one parameter, a fully documented nested schema, an output schema, and annotations covering mutation behavior. The description's simple statement of targets and assignment support is sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly without needing information already present in the schema.

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 already documents all fields thoroughly, including content requirements, due dates, duration formats, and assignment details. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the general mention of assignment support, which matches the baseline for high schema 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 a specific verb ('Add'), a resource ('tasks'), and the allowed targets ('project, section, or parent'). It also adds a distinguishing capability ('assignment to project collaborators'), making it easy to tell apart from sibling tools like update-tasks or complete-tasks.

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 establishes a clear context for use: creating one or more tasks in a Todoist project, section, or as subtasks. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action is unambiguous and well differentiated from siblings by the verb 'add'.

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