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

The only annotation is idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden. It discloses two genuinely non-obvious behaviors: PATCH-style partial mutation and that 'examples are added' rather than replaced (a surprising additive semantic the schema does not state). It omits permissions, effect on already-published tasks, and whether fields can be cleared, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the two most decision-relevant nuances. No wasted words, though the terseness edges toward under-specification for an 18-parameter mutation tool.

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 tool with 18 inputs, two enums, a nested qualification object, no output schema, and only an idempotentHint annotation, this description is far too thin. It never addresses whether the task must be unpublished, what happens to a live task, or validation/limit constraints, so the agent has gaps for most non-trivial invocations.

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?

With 18 parameters and only 56% schema description coverage, roughly half the inputs are undocumented in structured fields, and the description names none of them. Its only parameter-level contribution is the additive behavior of 'examples'; the many bare fields (title, domain, deadline, flags, nested qualification) get no added meaning.

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+resource ('Change a task's settings') and pins down the key behavioral distinction from create_task/publish_task with 'Does not publish.' It doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can tell what this does and what it does not.

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 partial-update rule ('only the fields you pass change') hints at how to use it, and 'Does not publish' implies publish_task is a separate follow-up step. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of required preconditions (e.g. task state, ownership), and no direct reference to alternatives.

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