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

The annotations already indicate this is destructive, and the description adds a valuable behavioral nuance: setting status to done completes the next actionable occurrence so recurring tasks continue. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand a non-obvious side effect. It does not detail other destructive side effects, but the annotation covers the general destructive nature.

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 three focused sentences: positive use case, a key behavioral caveat, and an explicit exclusion. It front-loads the most important selection information and contains no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 destructive update tool with 10 parameters, the description covers the core purpose, a key recurrence behavior, and the main exclusion. The output schema covers return values. The main missing piece is guidance around sibling tools such as familia_cancel_task, given that 'cancel' is listed 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 coverage is high, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping user intent (rename, reschedule, reassign, complete, cancel) to the update operation and by explaining the special behavior of status=done for recurring tasks. This is especially useful because the status parameter itself has no description in the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource (existing Familia task) and the verbs it covers: rename, reschedule, reassign, complete, cancel, or edit. It also explicitly says not to use it for creating a task. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling familia_cancel_task even though 'cancel' is listed as a use case, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

The description provides strong positive guidance ('Use this when the user asks to rename, reschedule, reassign, complete, cancel, or otherwise edit an existing Familia task') and an explicit when-not ('Do not use to create a new task'). It does not mention when to prefer siblings like familia_cancel_task or familia_delete_task, so the alternative-routing guidance is incomplete.

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