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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description says nothing beyond that: it does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (critical given the destructive hint), whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions/account context are required. For a mutation tool flagged destructive, the patch semantics are the key missing disclosure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is minimal to the point of under-specification for a mutation tool — some of the space saved should have been spent on update semantics.

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?

With six parameters, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, the definition should explain what changes and what is left untouched, plus what a successful call returns. The one-line description leaves an agent guessing about patch behavior and the effect on unspecified fields.

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 100%, so every parameter including the optional account selector is already documented in the schema. The description's field list duplicates title/notes/due without adding format or behavior detail, and mentions no account or tasklist scoping. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing task') and enumerates the mutable fields (title, notes, due date), which lets an agent distinguish it from tasks_create and tasks_delete. It does not explicitly separate itself from tasks_complete, which overlaps on state changes, but the field list implies the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'existing task' — the agent can infer the task must already exist, but nothing states when to use this versus tasks_complete (status changes) or tasks_create. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no guidance on partial versus full updates.

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