asana_create_project_status

Does 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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration or repetition. This is an excellent example of conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication needs, or how it fits within the broader Asana API context. The user would need to consult external documentation to understand the full operational context of this tool.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples, or clarify semantics like what 'GID' means or how 'opt_fields' should be used. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new status update for a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'asana_create_task_story' or 'asana_create_subtask' that also create content in Asana, leaving room for confusion about when to choose this specific creation tool.

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. With sibling tools like 'asana_get_project_status' and 'asana_delete_project_status' available, there's no indication of whether this is for initial creation versus updates, or how it relates to other project management tools in the set. The user must infer usage from the name alone.

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