Update a task
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | Task title | |
| status | No | Task status | |
| taskId | Yes | Task ID | |
| dueDate | No | Due date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| dueTime | No | Due time (HH:MM) | |
| priority | No | Priority level | |
| tripItemId | No | Link to trip item | |
| description | No | Detailed description |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate a mutating, non-destructive operation, and the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the update replaces the whole task or only supplied fields, what side effects occur, or what preconditions apply.
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 extremely short but under-specified rather than efficiently complete; it repeats the title without adding value. A three-word sentence is not an appropriate description for an 8-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?
Given the tool's mutating nature, eight parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, this one-line description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently. The schema covers field details, but the tool's behavior, return value, and relationship to other task tools remain unspecified.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented with types, formats, and enums. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the documentation burden.
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 is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and title ('Update a task' / 'Update Task'). It names the verb and resource but adds no specificity, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as trip_task_complete or trip_update, which also operate on task/trip-related resources.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent is not told how this differs from trip_task_create, trip_task_complete, or trip_task_delete, nor whether it supports partial updates or requires an existing task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type and action, making selection. The main ambiguity is between trip_item_add and trip_transport_add, since trip_item_add lists transport as a category but trip_transport_add explicitly says to always use it instead for transport.
The naming pattern is highly consistent: trip_<resource>_<action>. Minor deviations exist with bare verbs like search and fetch, and trip_review uses a verb-only style, but these are easy to understand within the larger pattern.
37 tools is a large surface that exceeds the typical coherence threshold. While the domain is broad, the count makes the server feel heavy and harder for an agent to navigate compared to a more focused toolset.
The toolset provides strong CRUD/lifecycle coverage across trips, items, notes, tasks, locations, collaborators, shares, and transport, plus review and search capabilities. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct collaborator add, no location update, and no item-level comment delete, but these are workable.