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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond field names: it doesn't clarify whether this is a partial update that preserves unspecified fields or a full replacement, despite 'destructiveHint' implying overwrites.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the field list second, with no redundant or filler text. Nothing could be trimmed without losing content.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with nested body/query overrides, no output schema, and required idempotency_key, the description omits critical context: partial-update semantics, idempotency requirements, and permission needs. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.

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 79%, so the schema largely documents the fields itself. The description's enumeration (title, description, status, priority, assignee, due date, links) mirrors the schema and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it, meriting the baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update task fields') and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent knows exactly what the tool touches. It does not differentiate from siblings like aidelly_create_task, aidelly_delete_task, or aidelly_get_task, though the verb 'update' implicitly separates it from those.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus aidelly_create_task, aidelly_delete_task, or aidelly_get_task, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing task id. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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