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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond the annotations: backend order re-normalization, the combination needed to mark done (is_completed=true, progress=100, status=DONE), and the app_url deep link to hand to users. These are non-obvious and valuable, and no contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: the partial-update definition, the order re-normalization warning, the done-marking recipe, and the app_url guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the large number of parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important usage notes (order, completion, app_url). It doesn't explain return format or errors, but the inclusion of app_url as a return property helps. This is a reasonably complete description for a complex update tool, though it could touch on validation constraints.

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?

Despite the schema having 0% description coverage for parameters, the description adds important meaning for order (re-normalization effect), the completion combo (is_completed/progress/status), and mentions story_points. It does not cover all parameters but provides key semantics for the tricky ones, compensating partially for the schema gap.

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 states this is a partial update (PATCH) of a task, listing example fields (progress, status, story_points, order). It distinguishes from siblings like update_tasks by emphasizing partial nature, and the resource is unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context: send only fields to change, and gives concrete scenarios like marking a task done with specific values. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., update_tasks) or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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