add_issues_to_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core write action ('add issues as cards') but does not explain idempotency, permissions, failure behavior when an issue number is invalid, or whether this is copy vs move.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every element earns its place.

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 simple 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, this is mostly adequate; it tells the agent the inputs and intended effect. It still omits error conditions, return behavior, and prerequisites, so it is not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies that issue_numbers are repo-scoped issue numbers and that the operation targets a project. Owner and project_id remain underspecified, though their names are self-explanatory.

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 a specific operation — adding existing issues to a project as cards — and clarifies that issue numbers are repository-scoped. This clearly differentiates it from create_issue and remove_issues_from_project.

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 context is provided: it doesn't say when to choose this over move_card, create_issue, or remove_issues_from_project, nor does it state prerequisites such as the issues or project needing to exist.

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