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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=false. The description adds meaningful non-schema behavior: user approval/confirmed=true is required, and writes are never retried automatically. It does not explain partial-update semantics or effects on omitted fields, but it adds useful context beyond annotations.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences are redundant ('Update task. Update a task.'), wasting space. The remaining sentences earn their place by disclosing approval and retry behavior.

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 a destructive PATCH with a nested body and no output schema, the description covers approval/retry requirements but omits partial-update behavior, permissions beyond approval, and most field semantics. Given low schema coverage, it is only minimally 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 only 33%, and the description explains just is_completed (while confirmed's schema already documents that field). It says nothing about path.id or most body fields such as title, due_date, person_id, property_id, opportunity_id, or assignment fields, so it fails to compensate for low coverage.

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 opens with 'Update task. Update a task.' which largely restates the title; it adds that setting is_completed marks done, but gives no scope or differentiation from siblings like get_tasks_id, delete_tasks_id, or post_tasks. It is a clear verb+resource but with a vague, repetitive purpose statement.

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 states a prerequisite: requires user approval and confirmed=true before changes. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over alternatives like delete_tasks_id or post_tasks, nor any exclusions. Usage is only implied beyond the approval gate.

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