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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and the title. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — that unspecified fields are left untouched (partial-update semantics) — which softens the destructive implication of overwriting data. It does not cover permissions, whether the update is reversible, or rate limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the non-obvious complete/re-open flag and the partial-update rule. No filler, and the LACRM: EditTask reference is compact.

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 8-parameter mutation tool with 75% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not clarify that only task_id is required, nor what the result of a successful edit looks like operationally. The core call path is covered, the edges are not.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents task_id, due_date, contact_id, assigned_to, calendar_id, and is_complete. The description restates the is_complete boolean semantics that the schema already provides, adding no new syntax or format detail beyond it. 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ("Update a task") and clarifies a non-obvious sub-purpose — completing or re-opening via is_complete. That distinguishes it from lacrm_create_task and lacrm_list_tasks, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 passed fields change" implies partial-update usage and the complete/re-open duality is spelled out, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-prefer-lacrm_create_task guidance or prerequisite statements. Usage context is only implied.

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