contacts_update_task

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It does not disclose implications of updating (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), required fields, or side effects. While it does not contradict annotations, it also contributes nothing extra.

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 ('Update Task'), but this brevity is due to under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. It fails to front-load any meaningful information and every word is essentially redundant with the tool name.

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?

With 7 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no behavioral or usage guidance, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent would be unable to correctly invoke this tool without external knowledge of the domain, making the description contextually incomplete.

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 29% schema description coverage (taskId and contactId described), the description is entirely silent about the remaining parameters (body, title, dueDate, completed, assignedTo). It offers no hints about what fields are updatable, optionality, or typical usage, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names and types.

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 'Update Task' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'contacts_update_task' without specifying the resource type, scope, or what 'update' encompasses. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'contacts_update_task_completed' or 'contacts_update_note', leaving the agent to infer the exact purpose from the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and other contacts_* update tools.

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