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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important partial-update semantics ('fields left out stay as they are'), status label mapping, and an agent status workflow. However, for a 16-parameter mutation tool it omits permissions, failure behavior, workspace constraints, and return effects.

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?

Front-loads the main verb and editable fields, then adds workflow and partial-update behavior. It is dense but has little obvious filler; a clearer structure for 16 parameters would help, but it is reasonably concise.

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?

Covers core mutation semantics and many fields well enough for common edits. Still, given 16 parameters, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, missing details around date/time/minutes and edge behavior leave notable gaps.

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 50%; the description adds meaning for status values, done/undone, and partial updates, and names many editable fields. But it does not explain date versus due, time, or minutes semantics, and several undocumented parameters remain unclarified in prose.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a task') and enumerates editable aspects including status, priority, due date, list, subtasks, note, Linear issue, and assignee. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_task, delete_task, or task_status, so it falls short of 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?

Gives explicit agent workflow guidance: set progress when starting a task and review or done when finished. It also notes omitted fields stay unchanged. It does not state when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool, so no 5.

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