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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by disclosing the optimistic-concurrency contract: an MCP_CONFLICT failure that changes nothing when the task changed after expectedUpdatedAt. It does not clarify what 'destructive' means for a partial patch (whether unspecified fields are preserved).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and field list, with no filler. The middle 'use when' sentence is the weakest, being largely redundant with the opening clause.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the concurrency/conflict behavior is covered. Remaining gap is the idempotencyKey contract for a retryable mutation, which is not addressed anywhere in the description.

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 0% across 5 parameters including a nested patch object, so the description must carry the burden. It does map the patch field names, which helps, but leaves idempotencyKey, projectId, and taskId semantics unexplained (expectedUpdatedAt is at least covered under behavior).

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?

Specifies a concrete verb and resource and enumerates the mutable fields ('Change the title, details, status, priority, dates, or assignee of one task'), so it is clearly distinguishable from clean_notes_update_note by resource. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternative, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

'Use when the user asks to edit a task' states a trigger context, but it essentially restates the tool's own purpose and offers no exclusions or comparison against the other update/create tools in the sibling set. Implied usage only.

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