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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the mutation and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: partial-update semantics ('Only pass the fields you want changed'), short-form taskId support, and a candid known gap about being unable to clear remindTauDays once set. It stops short of covering auth requirements or success/error behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the shared-path context before the list of task-specific fields. The parenthetical list is informative and nothing is wasted; the partial-update rule and taskId prefix note are placed efficiently.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it explains scope, shared semantics, partial-update behavior, and a known limitation. It would be stronger if it clarified when to prefer this tool over task_complete/task_snooze or how taskId lookup failures manifest.

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 all 12 parameters. The description adds a cross-tool semantic reference ('text/tags/project all work as in muninn_memory_update') that is not in the schema, and groups task-specific fields for quick orientation. This meaningfully exceeds the baseline 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific verb (Update) and resource (a task's fields), and distinguishes this tool from its sibling muninn_memory_update by noting that text/tags/project share that path. It also enumerates the task-specific fields that set it apart, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 gives a clear usage rule ('Only pass the fields you want changed') and routes shared-field semantics to muninn_memory_update. However, it does not explicitly address when to use this generic update versus specialized siblings like muninn_task_complete or muninn_task_snooze, leaving that choice to inference.

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