Tango

Update a task

update_task

Edit an existing Tango task in place. If client_id changes, task.agency_id is re-derived from the new client (client is authoritative). To reassign, use handoff_task. Cross-agency edits require allow_cross_agency: true; the change is audit-logged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	No
`role`	No
`type`	No
`title`	No
`status`	No	Move the task. Use `blocked` for work parked on a dependency, `cancelled` for work called off, and `archived` to shelve a task nobody will ever pick up. Agents cannot set `done`/`approved` — hand back for review instead.
`project`	No	Move the task to this project (name or @handle). Must belong to the task's client.
`sources`	No
`task_id`	Yes	Task id, or a pasted Tango task URL.
`deadline`	No
`client_id`	No
`parent_id`	No
`depends_on`	No	Replace the full set of prerequisite task ids. Pass [] to clear.
`project_id`	No	Move the task to this project id.
`constraints`	No
`description`	No
`status_reason`	No	Required when setting `blocked` or `cancelled`: a short human-readable why.
`evidence_required`	No	Set the evidence this task must carry before complete_task is accepted. Replaces any existing policy; pass [] to fall back to the organization default, or null to clear the override.
`allow_cross_agency`	No
`definition_of_done`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only mark this as a mutating, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: changing client_id re-derives agency_id from the client (authoritative), and cross-agency edits are audit-logged. These are side effects an agent needs to know before calling; it doesn't go further, but it exceeds what annotations alone provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, no filler: main purpose first, then important side-effect behavior, then routing and policy. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 19-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, this description covers a few high-risk behaviors but leaves many fields unguided. An agent would still be unsure about semantics of goal, role, sources, constraints, and definition_of_done, so the description alone is not sufficient context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 37%, so the description must compensate for the many undocumented parameters. It adds semantics for just client_id (agency re-derivation) and allow_cross_agency (cross-agency permission and audit logging), while leaving goal, role, sources, constraints, definition_of_done, parent_id, and others with no explanation in either the schema or the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Edit an existing Tango task in place.' It clearly distinguishes from related tools by naming handoff_task as the alternative for reassignment and implying create/delete are separate operations; an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly routes away from this tool for reassignment with 'To reassign, use handoff_task.' It also states a concrete precondition for cross-agency edits (allow_cross_agency: true), giving the agent a clear decision rule for when this tool is appropriate and when it is not.

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

All Tango tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but several adjacent pairs are easy to confuse: add_comment vs add_progress_note, call_executor vs call_integration, log_client_decision vs update_client_context vs memory_save, and list_context_sources vs list_integrations. The descriptions do disambiguate them, but the boundaries are subtle enough that misselection is likely with 81 tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_task, update_project, list_integrations, set_webhook), and get_/ list_/ create_/ update_ families are predictable. Minor deviations exist: memory_read/memory_save/memory_search invert to object_verb, and bare nouns like whoami, glossary, and security_posture break the pattern, but there is no chaotic casing or mixed conventions.

Tool Count2/5

At 81 tools, this is far above the weight that is comfortable for an agent's tool-selection surface, especially since many tools belong to families that could be consolidated (webhooks, worker keys, project logs, context/memory). Although the domain is broad, the count will overwhelm agents and increase misrouting.

Completeness4/5

The surface is unusually comprehensive: tasks, projects, workers, leases, artifacts, comments, handoffs, webhooks, keys, context, memory, integrations, and support all have create/read/update/delete or equivalent lifecycle coverage. The gaps are minor, such as remove_dependency without a visible add_dependency and no artifact/comment deletion, but agents can work around them.

Resources

Need Help?