Update task details such as status, priority, title, description, or due date. Only the fields you specify are changed, leaving others untouched.
Update a task. Only the fields you pass are changed. status/priority/title/description/due_date are supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | Status slug | |
| due_date | No | YYYY-MM-DD, or empty string to clear | |
| priority | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by clarifying patch behavior rather than full replacement. Still, it does not disclose response behavior, error handling, or any authorization/validation requirements beyond the schema.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important behavioral nuance (patch semantics) and a compact list of supported fields.
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 straightforward update tool, the description covers the essential behavior and field scope. The id requirement is clear from the schema, and no output schema exists so return-value documentation is not expected. A brief note about which siblings handle unsupported fields would make it fully complete, but nothing critical is missing for a correct call.
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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It merely repeats the field names (status/priority/title/description/due_date) without adding meaning; the useful partial-update note is parameter-level but does not clarify individual parameter formats or allowed values beyond what the schema already provides for due_date and priority.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update a task') and enumerates exactly which fields are supported (status, priority, title, description, due_date), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like create_task, delete_task, and the more specialized set_task_assignees/set_task_custom_field.
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 conveys partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and lists supported fields, which implies assignees and custom fields are handled elsewhere. However, it never explicitly directs the agent to alternatives such as set_task_assignees or set_task_custom_field, or states when this tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.