task_add

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

The description only states the add operation and supported fields. No annotations exist, so the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like side effects, error handling, idempotency, or return behavior. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler, but some additional context or structure (e.g., use cases) could improve it without harming conciseness.

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 output schema, the description does not mention return values or outcomes. It lacks info on side effects, idempotency, or behavior when inputs are invalid. The 5-parameter tool needs more context to be fully complete.

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 100%, and the description adds no new information beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The phrase 'Supports priority, due date, and notes' merely summarizes existing schema details, not adding 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 'Add a task to a project' with a specific verb and resource, and lists supported features (priority, due date, notes). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like task_delete, task_update, and task_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., task_update, task_delete). The description does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or preferred scenarios.

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