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

Annotations already indicate write capability (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'update'. It does not provide extra detail like auth requirements, error handling, or concurrency behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that lists key updatable fields in parentheses. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words, but could add a brief note about required taskId.

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 7 parameters with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention the required taskId, error conditions, or response behavior. Complete enough for a straightforward update but not exceptional.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description reiterates some fields (status, priority, etc.) but adds no new meaning. Baseline is 3 as schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 'Update a task' with specific fields (status, priority, assignee, due date, completion). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, and get_task.

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?

The description implies the tool is for updating existing tasks, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create_task for new tasks). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided. Usage is implied but not guided.

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