Github Add To Project

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

The annotations already mark the operation as idempotent, but the description adds concrete detail: a retry returns the existing card and neither adds nor overwrites anything. This goes beyond the annotation's bare flag. It does not cover permissions or side effects, but the mutation/safety profile is sufficiently disclosed.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and the idempotency behavior immediately after. The awkward typo 'One the board already holds' and the somewhat clipped second sentence reduce polish, but there is no wasted content.

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 reference to github_get_skill('project-boards') and the presence of an output schema compensate for some missing detail. However, for a tool with five required parameters and very low schema coverage, an agent still lacks essential param semantics needed to construct a correct invocation without external lookup.

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 only 20%, and the tool description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It does not explain the distinction between project_owner and repo_owner, what project_number refers to, or how the five required parameters relate. The only semantic help lies in the schema's issue_number description and the phrase 'issue or pull request.'

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 uses a specific verb ('Puts') and names the exact resource: an issue or pull request onto a project board. This clearly separates it from siblings like github_remove_from_project, github_set_project_field, or github_list_project_items. The idempotency note further clarifies the operation's behavior.

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 gives clear context for the operation but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or when not to use it. The pointer to github_get_skill('project-boards') implies the agent should fetch workflow conventions, which is helpful but indirect. The idempotency note usefully signals that retrying is safe.

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