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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description adds real value: "Only the fields you pass change" discloses PATCH-style partial-update semantics, and "Cannot delete" bounds the blast radius of the destructive hint. It says nothing about permission requirements for reassignment or what the response returns, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight sentences: capability list first, then the two behavioral constraints, then the underlying endpoint. Nothing is redundant and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema and fully documented inputs, the description covers the essential unknowns: partial-update scope, no deletion, and completion toggling. Missing only auth/actor caveats and result shape, which are minor 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 including actor, priority, and the date fields is already documented. The description restates a few of them (is_completed true/false) without adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema; the 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 (Edit) and resource (an existing task) and enumerates the concrete edit surfaces: reschedule, title, priority, reassign, complete/reopen. An agent can distinguish it from create_task and get_task without opening any 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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (modifying an existing task) and an explicit exclusion ("Cannot delete"), plus the partial-update contract. It does not name a sibling alternative such as create_task for new tasks, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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