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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true, so the description meaningfully adds the partial-update semantic (only supplied fields change), which is non-obvious given the stated PUT endpoint that would normally imply full replacement. It still omits permission requirements, whether omitted fields are cleared, and any rate/conflict behavior, but the key mutation contract is disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the partial-update rule is placed immediately after. The trailing "Insightly: PUT /Tasks with TASK_ID" is largely redundant with the task_id parameter and the tool name, a minor waste.

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 tool with no output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description plus the 93%-covered schema give an agent enough to invoke it correctly. It does not address return values, error behavior, or that clearing a field requires an explicit value (the schema hints at this via custom_fields null), leaving a small gap.

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% with 15 parameters, so the schema already carries essentially all parameter meaning, including date formats and the note that the instance defines valid STATUS values. The description only renames a few fields colloquially (e.g. "assignee" for responsible_user_id) without adding format or constraint detail, 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 (update) and resource (task) and enumerates the common fields an agent would touch (completed, due date, status, assignee, details). The resource name itself separates it from the update_contact/update_lead/update_opportunity siblings, but the description never explicitly contrasts with insightly_create_task or the other update tools.

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?

"Only the fields you pass are changed" is useful partial-update guidance that steers the agent toward passing a minimal payload, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives such as create_task or get_record for reading current values before an update.

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