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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that only provided fields are changed, which is a key behavioral note beyond the annotation. However, it does not cover error handling or side effects such as rescheduling, which would be useful.

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?

The description is three short, front-loaded segments: purpose, partial-update semantics, and REST mapping. Every sentence adds meaningful 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 operation with full schema coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the core behavior. It omits return value and error behavior, which is acceptable given no output schema, but mentioning the response format would make it slightly more complete.

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?

With schema coverage at 100% for all 10 parameters, the description does not need to re-explain them. It adds no parameter-specific semantics but correctly indicates that only provided fields are changed, which aligns with the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'task' and clarifies scope with 'existing task' and 'Only provided fields are changed,' clearly distinguishing it from create/delete/list siblings and naming the REST method.

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 usage as the generic update operation among siblings, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related task-state mutations like mark_complete or start/stop. The partial-update behavior is clarified, but no alternatives are named.

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