ghl_project_add_list_task

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), it discloses the exact success payload `{ "success": true }`, the non-idempotent conflict on duplicate membership, and that this path does not delete the task. It also names the required OAuth scope. It does not add rate-limit or permission-failure detail, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 tool-specific content (roughly three sentences) is preceded by a long shared block about hierarchy, RBAC filtering, lexorank positions, recurring-task fields, search filtering, and delete cascades — almost none of which bears on adding a task to an extra list. The relevant guidance is buried rather than front-loaded, weakening scanability.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the success response shape, the non-idempotent conflict case, the auth scope, and its relationship to delete and move. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only failure-mode detail (e.g. lock/permission errors) is absent.

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%, including a nuanced note on locationId being required for APP channel and ignored for OAuth/PIT. The description only implicitly maps listId/taskId via the endpoint template and adds no further semantics. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the weight.

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 tool-specific sentences state a specific verb and resource ('Adds an existing task to this list as an additional (non-home) membership'), which clearly distinguishes it from home-list assignment and from deletion. However, the first ~60% of the text is generic project-API preamble (hierarchy, RBAC, lexorank, recurring tasks, search), so a reader must dig past unrelated context to find the 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 explicitly scopes usage to additional membership and routes the agent elsewhere for the two adjacent operations: 'Delete the task with DELETE /projects/tasks/{taskId}' and 'Use Move Task to change the home list'. It also warns that re-adding an existing membership conflicts. It stops short of naming the exact sibling tool identifiers (ghl_project_set_task_home_list, ghl_project_remove_list_task).

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