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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that setting status to done completes the next actionable occurrence so recurring tasks continue, that household members may be notified, reminders may be rescheduled, and that delivered notifications cannot be recalled. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences that each carry meaning: when to use, recurring-task consequence, exclusion, and side-effect warning. It is appropriately sized, though the list of edit verbs is slightly redundant with the parameter names.

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 mutation tool with 10 schema-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, exclusions, recurring behavior, and notification side effects. It falls short only in not clarifying the boundary with familia_cancel_task, which matters for complete routing.

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?

The input schema already documents every parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond listing the edit actions; it does not clarify agreementId or how null clears fields, but the schema already handles that.

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 verb-resource pair ('edit an existing Familia task') and enumerates concrete use cases like rename, reschedule, and reassign, so an agent knows roughly what the tool does. It loses the top score because it also lists 'cancel' as a primary use while a dedicated sibling tool familia_cancel_task exists, so the description does not distinguish the two.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user asks to...') and one clear exclusion ('Do not use to create a new task.'). However, it does not mention when to prefer familia_cancel_task or other edit-oriented siblings, leaving some routing ambiguity for cancellation requests.

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