tasks_updateChange a task: its state, or the result of doing it
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The task's id | |
| title | No | New title | |
| detail | No | New detail | |
| result | No | What came of it — the answer, the outcome, what was found | |
| status | No | todo, doing, done, failed or blocked |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / status / descriptionPrevious value: -"todo, doing or done"New value: +"todo, doing, done, failed or blocked"Input schema / properties / result / descriptionPrevious value: -"What came of it: the answer, the outcome, what was found"New value: +"What came of it — the answer, the outcome, what was found"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations provide only a title and no read-only or destructive hints, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates mutation via 'Change' but does not disclose whether omitted fields are preserved, whether updates are applied partially or wholesale, or what response the caller should expect for a mutation tool with no output schema.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and immediately communicates the core action.
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?
The schema fully covers parameters and the tool is simple, but there are no annotations and no output schema. The description does not address partial-update behavior or return value, leaving some operational ambiguity for an agent deciding whether the call succeeded or what was changed.
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 parameters. The description adds little beyond naming 'state' and 'result', which overlap with status and result; it does not clarify the id requirement or any update semantics.
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 ('Change') and resource ('a task') and names the key affected aspects ('state, or the result of doing it'), which maps to the status and result parameters. This distinguishes it from siblings like tasks_create, tasks_delete, tasks_list, and tasks_next. However, the description omits title and detail even though the schema allows updating them, so it is not fully representative.
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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply restates the action, and whether to prefer tasks_update over tasks_create or tasks_next is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.