update_procedure_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing Procedure Task,' which implies a mutation but does not disclose side effects, whether it performs a partial or full update, idempotency, permission requirements, or return values. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It is concise and easy to parse. However, it is almost too sparse, providing only the bare minimum and lacking any additional context that could justify a higher score.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely underspecified. It does not explain update semantics, optional fields, error behavior, or any other operational detail. The agent would need to guess or rely on external documentation to use it correctly, making the description inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description also fails to list or explain any parameters, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone. Ten parameters exist, including ambiguous ones like 'position' and 'assigned_users,' and the description does nothing to clarify their meaning or the update behavior.

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 an existing Procedure Task' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (Procedure Task), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_procedure_task and delete_procedure_task through the explicit action and resource. However, it lacks any additional scope or context that would elevate it to a 5, such as which fields can be updated or any special behavior.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, related tools, or exclusions. The only implicit signal is the name itself, which suggests it is for updating existing tasks, but this is not explicitly stated as usage guidance.

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