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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics and the clearDueDate behavior, but does not address permissions, return values, error conditions, or the effect of setting status to completed.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose and the most nuanced behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and key semantics are front-loaded.

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 description covers the essential update behavior and date-removal nuance, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out return-value expectations and does not route the agent away from complete_google_task for the status-completed use case.

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 13%, and the description compensates by explaining title, notes, dueDate, status, and clearDueDate semantics. It does not explain listId/taskId identifiers, but those are fairly self-evident from names and the required-field context.

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 clearly states the operation ('Change a task's title, notes, due date or status') and the resource (a Google task). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling complete_google_task, which overlaps in the ability to set status to completed, so it misses full sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus complete_google_task or other task-related tools. The 'Only the fields you pass are touched' note explains behavior but not selection criteria or exclusions.

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