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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: this is a sparse PATCH where omitted fields are left intact, and it names the exact API endpoint. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or whether completing a task has side effects.

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, zero filler, with the WRITE marker and the verb/resource front-loaded ahead of the field enumeration and endpoint detail.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, sparse-update semantics and the underlying endpoint. Minor gaps: what the call returns and how to source task_id/assignee_id are left to the schema and siblings.

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% with enums on status, priority and assignee_type, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the field list (status, due date, priority, name, description, reassignment) without adding format or constraint details beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (update) plus resource (task), enumerates the mutable fields, and pins the underlying operation (Clio PATCH /tasks/{id}.json). This clearly separates it from clio_create_task and the read-only clio_list_tasks sibling.

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 clause 'Only the fields given are changed' communicates partial-update semantics, which is useful usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., obtaining task_id via clio_list_tasks first, or using clio_create_task for new tasks). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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