dooray_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions actions like create, update, delete which imply mutations, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what happens on deletion. For a multi-action tool with write operations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence listing all actions. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every element earns its place in this compact format.

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 complex multi-action tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how different actions relate to each other. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant trial and error.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it just lists action types without explaining parameter dependencies or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose as managing Dooray tasks with specific verbs (list, get, create, update, delete, change status, assign members). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on tasks rather than comments, files, members, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from dooray_search which might also involve tasks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dooray_search for task-related queries or dooray_workflows for status management. It simply lists capabilities without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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