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

The annotations supply destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered; the description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that updates are surgical (only supplied fields change) and names the PATCH endpoint. It does not elaborate why the operation is flagged destructive, does not state auth/permission requirements, and says nothing about error behavior for a nonexistent id.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key behavioral rule and the API mapping. Every sentence earns its place and the reader can stop after sentence one if that is all they need.

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 mutation tool with a nested passthrough object and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the resource, the partial-update rule, and the endpoint. It stops short of noting the required id, authentication expectations, or what happens to omitted fields at the API level, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 every parameter (including the "extra" passthrough object and the id) is already documented in the schema; the baseline for this dimension is therefore 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it also introduces no confusion.

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 precise verb and resource ("Update fields on an existing task") and pins the underlying operation to PATCH /rest/tasks/{id}, so an agent immediately knows this is a mutation on the task resource rather than a create/get/list. The verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from the create/get/list siblings in the family, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Only provided fields change" communicates partial-update semantics, which is useful context for choosing to call this rather than rewriting the whole record. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. the task must already exist, required id), and no routing to alternatives such as twenty_create_task or twenty_get_task.

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