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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds the key behavioral facts that only passed fields change (partial update), that deletion is impossible, and the is_completed true/false reopen semantics, plus the URL verb. It does not describe response shape or permission requirements beyond what the schema's actor field already says.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the capability list, then the partial-update and no-delete constraints, ending with the endpoint. No wasted verbiage.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the important semantics (partial update, no delete, completion toggle) and annotations cover the mutation risk. It could say more about the actor/admin requirement and any owner-assignment implications, which live only in the schema.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates is_completed semantics and the set of editable fields, adding little beyond the structured data; 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 ('Edit an existing task') and enumerates the actual edit dimensions (reschedule, title, priority, reassign, complete/reopen), plus the underlying endpoint PUT /tasks/{jnid}. An agent can separate this from create_task and get_task without opening a 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 exclusion ('Cannot delete'), plus the partial-update rule. It does not name sibling alternatives such as create_task for new tasks, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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