tasks_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on partial updates, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what fields can be updated, required permissions, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying taskId and properties are needed. It doesn't explain what properties can be updated (e.g., priority, status, due date) or their formats, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 task' clearly states the action (update) and resource (task), but it's vague about what can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like tasks_batch_update or tasks_archive. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or fields.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tasks_batch_update for multiple tasks or tasks_create for new tasks. The description implies usage for updating tasks but offers no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or sibling tool distinctions.

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