bugherd_update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool updates fields, but does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or whether changes are reversible. The verb 'Update' implies mutation, but no further behavioral details are given.

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 only two sentences, covering purpose and usage examples without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and immediately explains key use cases.

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 there is no output schema and 6 parameters (2 required), the description adequately explains what the tool does and provides usage examples. However, it lacks information on return values, error behavior, or prerequisites, which would be important for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context such as 'mark tasks as done' (for status) and 'assign them to users' (for assigned_to_id), which helps users understand how to use specific parameters. This slightly exceeds the baseline.

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 updates a task's status, priority, description, or assignee, and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on task attributes. It specifically mentions marking tasks as done, moving through workflow stages, and assigning, which sets it apart from other update tools like update_column or update_project.

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: 'mark tasks as done, move them through workflow stages, or assign them to users.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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