basecamp_add_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Add a new step to a card' and provides no details about permissions, idempotency, default state of the step (e.g., incomplete), reversibility, or what the response returns. This is minimal and offers no insight beyond the action itself.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. While brief, it earns its place by clearly conveying the core function.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is extremely minimal and fails to provide necessary context such as required parameters, how to obtain project/card IDs, what the created step includes, or how to verify success. Given the tool's complexity, this is incomplete.

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 mentions no parameters. Schema coverage is 60%, with title, due_on, and assignees having descriptions, but card_id and project_id are undocumented. Since coverage is not high (>80%), the description should compensate for missing parameter semantics, but it does not. It adds no value beyond the schema.

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 'Add a new step to a card' clearly states a specific verb (Add), the resource (a step), and the target (a card). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like basecamp_list_steps, basecamp_update_step, and basecamp_complete_step, which handle different operations on steps.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing existing project/card IDs or parent context. The verb 'Add' implies creation, but there is no explicit context or exclusions.

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