vk_put_projects_f6b76ac673f7

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Authentication is required' and that parameters accept aliases, which is useful. However, it incorrectly calls the body field 'optional' while the schema marks it as required, and it does not disclose side effects, return values, error behavior, or idempotency. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 somewhat repetitive ('Create a task' and 'Inserts a task into a project' say nearly the same thing) and could be tightened. The information about aliases and authentication earns its place, but the redundant phrasing and the incorrect 'optional body' statement reduce clarity.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should make the tool fully self-explanatory. It covers purpose, authentication, and parameter conventions, but it omits the response format, possible validation rules, and the distinction between this raw proxy and the high-level create-task sibling. The body-required inconsistency further undermines completeness.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that parameters are top-level and that original names accept camelCase/snake_case aliases. However, it explicitly says the body is 'optional' when the schema requires it, which is misleading and undermines the added value.

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 'Create a task' and specifies the exact endpoint 'PUT /projects/{id}/tasks', which unambiguously identifies the operation and resource. It also distinguishes itself as a 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy', differentiating it from higher-level sibling tools like vikunja_create_task.

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 implies usage by calling it a 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' and clarifies how to structure the request (body field, top-level path/query parameters, aliases). However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as vikunja_create_task or vk_post_tasks, and it does not state exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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