update_task

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It doesn't disclose side effects, required permissions, or that partial updates are supported. The phrase 'Edit a task' merely restates the title and annotation, providing no additional transparency.

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 extremely short (two words), but this is under-specification for a tool with 16 parameters, not conciseness. A good description should be brief while still providing essential context; here, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity and utility.

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 tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what a task is, what fields are commonly edited, or any behavioral nuances. The agent has insufficient information to determine correct usage, making this description nearly useless for contextual decision-making.

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 only 44% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the roles of key parameters, but it provides no parameter information whatsoever. The schema itself has descriptions for some fields like task_id and user_id, but the many undocumented fields (module_id, have_remember, todo_status_id, etc.) are left entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without sufficient semantics to invoke correctly.

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 'Edit a task' clearly indicates a verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like create_task, get_task, and delete_task. However, it is minimal and doesn't specify the scope of editing (e.g., partial vs. full updates), leaving some ambiguity about the operation's exact nature.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, whether create_task should be used for new tasks, or any scenarios where update_task is preferred. The description simply states the action without contextual direction.

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