vk_put_tasks_8a9c7a6241a6

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

With no annotations, the description compensates by disclosing authentication requirements, write access needs, and parameter conventions (top-level fields, alias support). It does not cover return values or idempotency, but the provided behavioral details are substantial.

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 front-loads the purpose but repeats 'Create a new task comment' twice. It is relatively short, yet the redundancy is unnecessary and could be streamlined.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential context: endpoint, auth, permissions, parameter passing, and aliases. It lacks detail about the comment object structure and omits error/return information, but these are largely beyond the description's scope since schema does not provide them either.

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 description adds useful parameter handling details (camelCase/snake_case aliases and top-level fields) beyond the schema. However, it misleadingly calls the body field 'optional' when the input schema marks it required, creating confusion and undermining 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 new task comment' and specifies the exact endpoint 'PUT /tasks/{taskID}/comments'. This distinguishes it from other task-related tools and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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?

It mentions the prerequisite of write access and identifies itself as a 'raw Vikunja REST proxy', implying use for direct REST calls. However, it does not explicitly compare with high-level alternatives like vikunja_create_task_comment, so the usage context is only implied.

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