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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: the auth requirement ('Requires TASKS_WRITE'), the partial-update semantics, and the underlying GraphQL mutation shape updateTask(updatedTask, area). It does not describe reversibility or the response, but it is consistent with the annotations and usefully supplements them.

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?

Front-loaded with the mutating classification, then required vs optional fields, then the auth requirement. Four dense sentences, each carrying information, with no filler.

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 partial-update mutation with no output schema, the description covers the required param, the mutation semantics, and the permission scope an agent needs before calling. Return value behavior is not covered, but the critical invocation details are present.

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 the schema already documents id, area, status, userId, content, sortOrder, and fields. The description restates format hints (stringified TipTap JSON, userId reassignment) and the mutation signature, adding some value, but the undocumented 'fields' escape hatch is only explained in the schema. 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 and resource ('update an existing task'), identifies the required id, and enumerates the mutable fields. The mutating nature and scope make it trivially distinguishable from create_task, list_tasks, and the read siblings.

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 usage context via 'Only included fields change,' which tells the agent this is a partial update and that unspecified fields are untouched. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the operation is unambiguous enough that this is a minor gap.

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