team_update_task

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

The description adds vital operational behavior not found in annotations, specifically stating that the call must 'Refresh after STALE_REVISION.' This is essential for robust function execution.

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 definition is extremely dense and efficient, packing operational constraints, parameter semantics, and the full list of capabilities into a single, cohesive sentence without any wasted words.

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 the high number of parameters and the lack of any output schema, the description covers essential behavioral context (revision handling, role definition) and the full scope of the tool's functionality (supported actions).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides high-value semantics for the 'actorId' parameter, clarifying that it refers to a workflow role, not the host identity. While it lists the actions (which are in the enum), it does a reasonable job of clarifying key ambiguous parameters.

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 purpose is stated clearly as updating a shared task and is significantly enhanced by listing all supported 'actions' like claim, release, and reassign. This explicitly defines the scope of the 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 guides usage by listing supported actions, which tells the agent when to use the tool for specific outcomes (e.g., 'reopen' vs 'complete'). It also provides critical constraints on parameter usage, such as the definition of 'actorId' as a workflow role.

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