roadmap_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: a manager-only permission requirement and that the call is a proposal that does not materialize a task. It says nothing about the mutation's side effects, idempotency, failure behavior, or what a proposal becomes afterwards, which leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

A single ten-word sentence with no padding, and the most decision-relevant fact (manager-only, not a task) is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, this one-line definition is substantially under-specified. It omits parameter guidance and return behavior, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 0% across 9 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever - not for the required title/outcome, nor for priority, milestone, acceptance, depends_on, provenance, needfix_ids, or evidence_refs. The agent must guess the semantics of most inputs from their bare names.

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 names the resource (Roadmap proposal) and its manager-only scope, and explicitly rules out a sibling behavior ('does not create or launch a task'), which separates it from aiworkhub_task_create. The verb 'add' is only implied by the tool name, so it stops short of a fully self-contained statement of purpose.

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 provides two real usage signals: manager-only authorization and the negative guidance that this is not task creation/launch. However, it never says when to add a roadmap entry versus calling roadmap_transition, roadmap_link_task, or task_create, so the agent must infer the intended context.

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