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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool updates fields, but it does not disclose side effects, whether partial updates are supported, permission requirements, or what happens to unspecified fields. The workflow movement note is more about usage than behavior, and no information about returns or destructive potential is provided.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives concrete usage examples. No unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return values, error conditions, or partial update semantics. It gives a strong purpose and usage context but lacks the full contextual detail expected for a complex mutation tool. The schema covers parameter syntax, but behavioral completeness remains incomplete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description restates some fields (status, title, etc.) but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify relationships between team_id and team_name, nor edge-case behaviors for these 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('task'), and enumerates the specific fields it modifies: status, title, description, priority, and team assignment. It also illustrates a typical workflow movement (todo -> in_progress -> done), which further clarifies its intended function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like assign_task or update_project.

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 provides explicit use cases: moving tasks through the workflow and reassigning to a team. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using assign_task specifically for pure assignment without other updates.

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