Github Add To Project

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the idempotentHint annotation by explaining that a retry 'adds nothing and overwrites nothing' and that an already-present item returns its existing card. This clarifies the idempotency semantics concretely. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by explaining retry behavior. A minor grammatical awkwardness in 'One the board already holds' prevents a perfect score.

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?

With annotations covering idempotency and non-destructiveness, and an output schema covering return values, the description is adequate for a basic invocation. However, the lack of parameter-level detail and alternative guidance leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding exactly how to populate all five required arguments.

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%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented parameters, but it does not explain project_owner, project_number, repo_owner, or repo_name. It adds only marginal context by saying the issue_number can be an issue or pull request on a project board, which mostly repeats the one schema description already present.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Puts an issue or pull request on a project board.' This is not a tautology of the name, and it clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like github_remove_from_project and github_set_project_field by identifying the exact operation and target.

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 first sentence implies the use case: when an issue or pull request should be placed on a project board. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as creating a new issue, setting a field, or removing an item, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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