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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses optimistic concurrency behavior (stale expectedRevision yields CONFLICT), null-clearing semantics for assignee/reviewer, state-based mutation restrictions, and the specific TASK_IN_REVIEW error case. It also notes that a bounded receipt is returned, giving useful behavioral context for a destructive update tool.

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-loads the core action and revision requirement. The skipped-proposal clause is grammatically dense and slightly hard to parse, but every sentence carries useful information.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description covers the critical mutation semantics: revision requirement, null clearing, state restrictions, and return brevity. It leaves some gaps around the why/audience parameters and does not fully explain all covered fields, but it is substantially complete for correct invocation.

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 63%, so some parameter meaning must come from the description. It adds important semantics for expectedRevision (required, conflict on stale), assignee/reviewer (person or agent:<handle>, null clears), and state-related constraints, though it does not mention the why, title, body, or audience parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Update a task') and immediately distinguishes the mechanism via revisioned updates with a required expectedRevision. It also explicitly routes the agent to task_get for full details, separating this mutation from the read sibling.

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 clearly sets context for when this tool applies, including that updates require the current revision and that assignee/reviewer cannot change while In review or on a skipped proposal still for its agent. It names task_get as the retrieval alternative but does not explicitly contrast against other mutation siblings such as task_decide, task_complete, or task_propose.

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