boardagent_update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add two genuine behavioral facts: metadata is merged into agent_id's namespace, and a write role is required. It still omits whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (partial vs full replacement), validation/failure behavior, and reversibility, which matters for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. The brevity is efficient, though it edges into under-specification for a 16-parameter mutation tool.

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?

Given 16 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and nested objects, this description is far too thin. It covers the core purpose and two behavioral facts but leaves the agent without guidance on the vast majority of inputs.

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% across 16 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It clarifies only the metadata/agent_id relationship; the status and priority enums, due format, dependencies, custom_fields, and the remaining parameters get no semantic explanation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a task'), which is enough to distinguish it from the create/list/get/delete/claim/complete siblings by verb. However, it never says which aspects of the task are updatable, leaving the scope of the operation thin relative to a 16-parameter schema.

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 only guidance is 'Requires write role,' which is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There is no statement of when to use this tool versus boardagent_claim_task, boardagent_complete_task, or boardagent_create_task, and no exclusions or conditions.

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