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

Beyond the sparse annotations (all hints false), the description reveals partial-update behavior, the whole-list replacement semantics of tags, the clearing sentinel for due, and the existing-board prerequisite for project. It also promises a return value (the new row), which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core behavior, then cover special cases and the return value. There is no filler and no redundant restating of schema details.

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 9-parameter state-changing tool with no output schema, it covers the primary use case, partial update semantics, key special values, a prerequisite, and the return value. It doesn't enumerate error cases or clearing semantics for other text fields, but those are minor gaps.

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 44%, but the description compensates with the global rule 'only the fields you pass are touched' plus specific behaviors for tags, due, and project. Remaining parameters like notes, title, column, priority, and estimate_minutes rely on their names and schema types, so the compensation is good but not exhaustive.

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 opening clause 'Change a task by id' names the operation and target resource precisely, and 'only the fields you pass are touched' defines the update scope. The listed semantics for tags, due, and project make it easy to distinguish from sibling operations like task_add, task_delete, task_done, and task_move.

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 gives concrete invocation guidance: pass only fields to change, use 'none' to clear due, and use an existing board for project. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear and actionable.

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