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

Annotations mark this destructive and non-idempotent, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing partial-update semantics, that user_ids replaces the entire assignee list, that null clears eligible fields, and that the request is sent once and never retried. That last point is exactly the operational context an agent needs for a non-idempotent write, and it does not contradict the destructiveHint.

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 tightly packed sentences lead with the WRITE classification and the partial-update rule, then use cases, then the endpoint. No filler and nothing buried.

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 15-parameter partial-update tool the description covers the behaviors that matter most: what is replaced vs. cleared, safety exclusions, and retry policy. The only gap is what comes back after the update, which is not covered by an output schema but is also not stated here.

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 every parameter is already documented at the field level. The description's notes on list replacement and null-clearing restate what the schema already says for user_ids and the nullable fields, adding no new syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('changes fields of one task') with scope qualifiers ('only the fields you pass'), and the PATCH endpoint confirms the partial-update semantics. An agent can distinguish this from fieldwire_create_task and fieldwire_get_task without inspecting the schema.

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?

Explicitly lists the intended use cases (status, owner, assignees, priority, dates) and gives one clear exclusion ('It does not delete the task'). It does not name alternative siblings for related operations, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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