tasks_update

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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: status transitions to done/dropped close the task and unblock dependents, and locked tasks fail with an error. This gives the agent a clear understanding of side effects and constraints.

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 only: the first states the main capabilities, the second covers the critical lock behavior. No fluff, front-loaded, and every sentence adds essential 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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary update types and the locking mechanism. It does not explain the return value or all edge cases (e.g., adding dependencies to a closed task), but the information provided is sufficient for typical usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the status enum values, the comma-separated string acceptance for add_depends_on, and the condition for using the session parameter. It does not elaborate on every parameter (e.g., project, session_id precedence) but provides sufficient context beyond the schema.

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 'Update a task' and enumerates specific fields (status, title, body, dependencies). It distinguishes from siblings like tasks_add and tasks_claim by focusing on updates and mentioning lock behavior unique to this tool.

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 explains when to use the tool (to update task fields) and notes that attempting to update a locked task fails. It provides guidance on when the session parameter is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., using tasks_release to unlock) or when not to use this tool.

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