Add Task Tool

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full load. It does disclose useful behavior: that a task can be unassigned (free) and that confirmation with the person is required before writing. It says nothing about duplicate handling, permissions, what gets created in response, or that "idea" tasks stay out of open tasks.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action first and the interaction rule second. The parenthetical assignment list is slightly dense but every clause carries meaning.

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 nine-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and confirmation but omits the behaviorally significant cases (idea vs. real work, recurring tasks, repo/session project resolution). Those are documented per-parameter, so the description is workable but thin relative to the tool's 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 schema already explains repo, session, repeat, idea, and assignee semantics in detail. The description adds only the assignee framing ("free", "me", "for a colleague"), which the schema itself also states. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("Adds a task to a project") plus the three assignment modes (free / me / colleague) that define what kind of task gets created. It implicitly separates itself from update_task and add_note, but never names a sibling to route the agent 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?

Gives a concrete precondition: "Confirm the title and who does it with the person first." That tells the agent when it may proceed and what must be settled beforehand. It stops short of naming alternatives (update_task, add_note, add_project) or when not to create a task.

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