add_to_project

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

The description goes beyond the idempotentHint annotation by explaining the concrete retry behavior: an already-attached item is returned and no duplicate card is created. This is useful behavioral context, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the idempotency note is a valuable addition.

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 straightforward add-to-board operation with an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and the key edge case (duplicate items). It omits permission prerequisites and error handling, but these are not essential for selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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 low (20%), and the description only indirectly clarifies parameters by identifying the item as an issue or pull request. However, the parameter names (project_owner, project_number, repo_owner, repo_name, issue_number) and the 'project board' wording make the mapping reasonably clear; the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 action—putting an issue or pull request onto a project board—and is not a tautology. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like remove_from_project or set_project_field, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 intended use is implied: call this when an issue or PR needs to be added to a project board. It gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead.

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