Add feature

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations: it indicates the tool is a mutation (adds a feature) and returns a ticket ID. However, it does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or what happens to existing data. Annotations are all false, so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the core action and return value. Every word is purposeful, and there is no superfluous or redundant content.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what a 'feature' is, how the board is identified, or what mandatory parameters (like project and title) are required. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool confidently without additional schema inspection.

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?

With 58% schema description coverage, the schema provides meanings for some parameters (e.g., ref, dueDate, newFile). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline for moderate coverage is 3, and the description does not improve upon it.

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 action ('Add a feature') and the specific resource ('to a board's featurelist.md'). It also mentions the return value (new ticket ID), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. This distinguishes it from similar tools like add_features_bulk or commit_feature.

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 such as add_features_bulk or commit_feature. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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