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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does deliver non-obvious behavior: null clears the due time, setting a new due time re-arms the single reminder, and the actor must be the owner, the office, the assigned worker or the creator. It omits partial-update semantics (whether unlisted fields are preserved) and any error or idempotency behavior, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, no filler, and the most decision-relevant content (what can change and the null-clears rule) is front-loaded before the permission note. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the schema alone.

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 straightforward field-update mutation with a shallow schema and an output schema already covering return values, the description is close to sufficient: it covers mutated fields, clearing behavior, side effects and authorization. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about partial-update semantics or failure modes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: it maps title, job, worker and both due fields (due_on/due_at) to their meaning and explains that null clears the due time. It never explains null semantics for job_id or assignee_id, and task_id is not mentioned at all, leaving real coverage gaps for a 6-parameter tool.

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?

"Change a task's title, job, worker or due time" states a specific verb (change) plus the resource and the exact set of mutable fields, which cleanly separates it from tasks_create, tasks_close and tasks_list. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the write-scope is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for editing an existing task's fields, and the permission sentence tells it who is allowed to do so. There is no explicit guidance on when to reach for this versus tasks_close for closing or tasks_create for new tasks, and no statement that omitted fields are left untouched.

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