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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It does disclose two useful behaviors: omitted fields are not overwritten, and clearDueDate removes the due date entirely. Still, it does not mention permissions, validation, error behavior, or whether updates are reversible.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The most important behavioral detail, that omitted fields are preserved, is front-loaded, and the clearDueDate special case is stated directly.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is minimally sufficient: it identifies the editable fields and key update semantics. It is incomplete around required identifiers, timezone handling, possible status values, and what happens after a successful update, though some of that is visible in the schema.

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 40%, so the description should compensate for many undocumented parameters. It adds meaning by explaining partial-update semantics and the purpose of clearDueDate, but it does not clarify listId, taskId, timeZone, status, or importance beyond their raw names/schema types.

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 names a specific resource ('a task') and a concrete set of operations ('Change a task's title, due date, importance, notes or status'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is clear and distinct from create/delete tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling complete_outlook_task or update_google_task.

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 verb 'Change' and the phrase 'Omitted fields are left alone' imply this is for modifying an existing task, which gives some basic usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over complete_outlook_task, when not to use it, or what prerequisites apply.

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