lokalise_update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutation behavior, a constraint (cannot change type), and side effects (notifies assignees). However, it does not cover authorization needs, rate limits, or idempotency, which is a gap 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?

The description is three concise sentences with clear front-loading: purpose, required params, optional uses, and a constraint/note. Every sentence adds essential information with no waste.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the action, required params, optional fields, a constraint, and the return value ('Updated task details'). It could mention partial update behavior explicitly, but it's sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by grouping optional fields (title, description, due_date, etc.) and stating their purpose. This helps the agent understand the tool's flexibility beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool modifies an active work assignment (verb + resource) and lists required params. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_task' or 'delete_task' by focusing on updates and mentioning constraints like 'Cannot change task type after creation.'

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 provides explicit use cases ('extend deadlines, reassign work, or update scope') and a constraint ('Cannot change task type after creation'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool suggestions, but the usage context is clear.

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