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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces and extends this with 'MUTATES', partial-update semantics, and an explicit TASKS_WRITE permission requirement. It does not speculate about irreversibility or side effects, but for an update tool the key behavioral warnings are 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?

Two dense sentences front-load the mutation warning, then cover required id, optional fields, partial-update behavior, GraphQL mapping, and authorization. No filler or repetition.

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 mutation with one required param and several optional fields, the description gives the essential context: what changes, what stays untouched, and what permission is needed. The lack of an output schema is a minor gap, but the schema and annotations cover the remaining mechanics.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the human-readable alias 'assignee (userId)' and clarifies that only included fields are changed, which is useful beyond the raw schema. The area and fields parameters are left to the schema, but they are fully documented there.

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 opening phrase 'MUTATES Parabol data: update an existing task' gives a specific verb, resource, and mutation type, and 'Required: id' distinguishes this from sibling creation tools like create_task. The title confirms what the tool does, and the description makes the scope (existing task, partial update) unmistakable.

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?

The description implies when to use it: when you have an existing task id and want to change only the supplied fields, with 'Only included fields change' preventing accidental overwrites. It does not name alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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