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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds meaningful context by confirming that only supplied fields change, which is the key behavioral fact for a 17-parameter patch tool. It says nothing about side effects such as tag auto-creation, recurrence interaction, or what an unchanged field does, so it goes beyond annotations only modestly.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the mutation semantics, then the practical completion tip. No filler; the only weakness is that brevity here comes partly at the cost of coverage.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and under half of the parameters documented, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from it how recurrence fields combine, whether clearing a field is possible, or what the response contains, leaving substantial gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is only 47% across 17 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. Only the status parameter is elaborated (with a pointer to dandori_list_task_statuses); the nine or so undocumented fields (title, notes, description, priority, energy_level, project_id, goal_id, recurrence_type, recurrence_interval) get no explanation in either place.

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?

"Modifier une tâche existante" states a specific verb and resource, and "seuls les champs fournis changent" pins down the patch semantics rather than a full replacement. It is clearly distinguishable from dandori_create_task or dandori_delete_task by the name and verb, though it never names a sibling 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?

It gives one concrete usage recipe (set status to done, or another terminal status) and routes the agent to dandori_list_task_statuses for valid status keys, which is genuinely actionable. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related ones (e.g. dandori_apply_task_template, dandori_update_project), and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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