Update a task

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining PATCH partial-update behavior, the clear_due/clear_notes semantics, and the important Google API quirk that empty strings do not clear fields. It also discloses that parent and position are read-only in this resource. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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 three tight sentences: core behavior, clearing rules, and explicit exclusions plus return value. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough contextual glue: required IDs come from list/create tools, optional fields are documented, clearing behavior is explained, and the return value is stated as the updated task. An agent has everything needed to select and call this correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operation-level meaning that the schema alone does not: only provided fields change, at least one is required, and clear flags erase rather than replace. It also notes that empty strings will not clear fields, which is essential for correct use.

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 ('Changes') and resource ('a task's title, notes and/or due date') and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding completion changes and move/re-parent operations. This lets an agent differentiate update_task from complete_task, reopen_task, and move_task without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: completion status changes belong to complete_task/reopen_task, and re-parenting/reordering belongs to move_task. It also clarifies PATCH semantics and the requirement that at least one field be provided, so the agent knows when this tool is appropriate.

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