Update a subtask (title, description, response_type, response_config, requires_photo, sort_order).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| sort_order | No | ||
| subtask_id | Yes | Subtask ID | |
| description | No | ||
| response_type | No | ||
| requires_photo | No | ||
| response_config | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the list of mutable fields, which mildly extends transparency, but it does not disclose partial-update semantics, validation rules, or whether updating response_config requires matching response_type.
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?
A single sentence with the key info front-loaded; every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title.
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?
No output schema, 7 parameters, and a nested response_config object, yet the description offers no return-format info, no constraints on values, and no clarification of how the optional fields interact. The tool would be hard to invoke correctly without external schemas or examples.
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 only 14% (only subtask_id is described). The description merely lists field names already present in the schema and provides no additional meaning for response_config, response_type, or the relationship between them, so it fails to compensate for the 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a subtask'), and enumerates the updatable fields, so an agent can tell it from sibling delete/complete tools. It does not explicitly contrast with tascan_update_task or tascan_complete_subtask, but the resource name already disambiguates the primary purpose.
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 on when to update a subtask versus alternatives such as tascan_complete_subtask or tascan_delete_subtask. The context implies modification of an existing subtask, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mention of when the sibling tools should be preferred.
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 map to a distinct resource+action pair, and the descriptions clearly separate entities like tasks, subtasks, workers, invoices, zones, assets, and reports. A few close pairs (get_report vs generate_report, dispatch_instruction vs dispatch_to_agent, analyze_issue vs auto_resolve) require careful reading, but the descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate them.
The vast majority follow a tascan_verb_noun pattern with consistent create/get/list/update/delete verbs. Minor deviations like condition_history, server_info, zone_compliance, and one-word find slightly break the otherwise predictable pattern.
At 69 tools, this is far beyond what an agent can efficiently consider, and it bundles several distinct domains into one MCP surface. Even if each tool is individually useful, the combined set is an extreme mismatch for a coherent tool interface.
The surface covers nearly the full lifecycle for projects, events, tasks, subtasks, workers, reports, invoices, zones, assets, issues, and communications. Minor gaps exist (no explicit asset updates/decommissioning, no cancel_invite, no delete_zone), but the main workflows have no dead ends.
