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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is largely handled elsewhere. The description adds the non-obvious authorization requirement (Editor role) and reveals that setting status to open is the reopen path, but it omits whether unspecified fields are preserved on update (patch vs. replace) and what happens to a due date when none is supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates the mutations, followed by a short permission clause. No repetition, no filler, every clause carries information.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and thin per-parameter documentation, the description covers the meaningful operation set and the role gate. The remaining gaps (partial-update semantics, null due date, success behavior) are real but modest given the annotations already establish the mutation profile.

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 only 20% (only workspace_id is documented), so the description has to compensate. It does map the operations onto status (done/cancelled/open), due_at and title, which is genuine value, but task_id and the meaning of due_at=null (clearing the due date) are never addressed.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (update a CRM task) and enumerates the four concrete operations it performs (complete, cancel, reopen, reschedule, rename), which maps directly onto the status/title/due_at fields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the obvious sibling dosai_create_task or dosai_list_tasks, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

"Editor or above" supplies a real permission prerequisite, which is useful context. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over dosai_create_task or dosai_update_followup_step, and no exclusions or 'do not use for' guidance.

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