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

Annotations already declare this as a write operation with destructive and idempotent hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important behavioral context by stating that only passed fields are changed, which clarifies partial-update semantics, though it does not discuss permissions or reversibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the key partial-update constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Given rich annotations, full schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description contains everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the mutation scope, the fields affected, and the partial-update behavior without omitting critical invocation details.

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 every parameter and baseline is 3. The description still adds value by mapping operations to parameters (e.g., close/reopen to status, reassign to assigned_to, notes to comments) and reinforcing that unspecified fields are untouched.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Changes a task") and enumerates the mutable fields, making the tool's scope unambiguous. The phrase "Only the fields you pass are changed" further distinguishes it from a create or list operation.

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?

It clearly indicates the situations in which the tool applies: closing/reopening, reassigning, changing due date, subject, priority, and notes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as semble_create_task or semble_list_tasks, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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