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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, so the description usefully adds the partial-merge behavior (unspecified fields are preserved). However, it says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, whether overwriting custom_fields or statuses is reversible, or what happens to fields set to null — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool flagged destructive.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action plus the mutable-field list, but the trailing "Insightly: PUT /Tasks with TASK_ID." is implementation detail of limited value to an agent selecting the tool, and the field enumeration partially duplicates the schema.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description omits the return shape (does it echo the updated task?), error behavior on invalid ids, and any destructive-change caveat despite the destructiveHint annotation. The partial-update statement is the one strong piece of context, leaving the definition minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 93%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including formats (e.g. "yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss" UTC) and status value guidance. The description only names a subset of fields in prose and adds no syntax, defaults, or id-resolution guidance beyond the schema.

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 gives a concrete verb+resource ("Update a task") and enumerates the mutable fields (completed, due date, status, assignee, details), so the agent knows exactly what this tool changes. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from insightly_create_task or the other insightly_update_* siblings, but update-vs-create is self-evident from the name.

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?

It states the key edit semantics — "Only the fields you pass are changed" — which is genuinely useful for a partial-update tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing a valid task_id or fetched record), and no mention of when another sibling (create_task, get_record) would be preferred.

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