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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and status semantics, but leaves a real ambiguity: whether this is a partial update or a full replacement that clears omitted fields (PUT semantics), which is exactly the risk destructiveHint flags.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the resource, then field specifics and the HTTP endpoint. No filler.

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 6-param mutation tool with one required key and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks only the omitted-field/partial-update behavior, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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% and every field is documented with types, lengths, and status enum meaning. The description merely re-lists the same fields, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema, so 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 (change/update) and resource (task) plus the exact editable fields and the numeric meaning of status. It is unambiguous against siblings like freshsales_create_task or freshsales_get_task.

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 'WRITE:' prefix and the field list imply this is for modifying an existing task, and the sibling name set makes create/get alternatives inferable. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, nor any stated prerequisite (e.g., task must exist, required permissions).

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