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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description meaningfully extends this by disclosing that only passed fields are sent and that each passed field OVERWRITES the stored value, plus the PUT endpoint — a real destructive-semantics clarification. It omits auth requirements and failure modes.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and the destructive overwrite caveat stated before the endpoint detail. 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 7-parameter partial-update mutation with no output schema, the essentials are present: verb, scope, partial-update/overwrite semantics, and endpoint. What is missing (permission requirements, error behavior on invalid list or user, response shape) is minor against annotation coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping intent to parameters (reschedule → due, move → list, reassign → user_id, complete → status 2) and by restating the status codes inline, letting an agent choose the right field without cross-referencing 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?

States the specific verb and resource ('change a task') and enumerates the exact operations it covers (rename, move, reschedule, notes, reassign, status change). The 'WRITE:' prefix immediately distinguishes it from read siblings such as tokeet_get_task and tokeet_list_tasks, and from tokeet_create_task.

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 operation list makes clear this is the tool for modifying an existing task, which is strong selection context. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., use tokeet_create_task instead for new tasks) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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