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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description goes further by disclosing the cascade side effect ("a flow-step task shifts its later steps when its due time moves") and the exact idempotent-replay behavior, including the conflict case where nothing is applied if the task changed since. Null-to-clear and null-to-unlink semantics are also disclosed, which no annotation covers.

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?

Field scope is front-loaded, then behavioral notes, then retry semantics — a sensible order. The final sentence packs three distinct idempotency facts together, making it denser than the rest, but no sentence is filler.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the modifiable fields, null semantics, cascade behavior, and idempotent replay, and it hints that the call returns the task. It never states the normal (non-replay) return shape or what happens on a partial/failed update, which a mutation tool without an output schema would ideally mention.

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 only 13% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and mostly does: due_date is "ISO 8601 with offset, or null to clear", and client_id/conversation_id null "unlinks", semantics absent from the schema. It leaves title/description length limits and the priority enum values to the schema, which is reasonable since those are already explicit there.

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?

"Edits a task" plus an explicit enumeration of the editable surface (title, description, due_date, priority, client_id/conversation_id) gives a precise verb+resource+scope that separates this from delete_task, assign_task or complete_task by implication. It stops short of naming any sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Send only the fields to change" establishes patch semantics clearly, and the retry instruction ("Pass the same idempotency_key when retrying") tells the agent exactly how to handle failure. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to complete_task/snooze_task for adjacent operations.

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