chap.task.update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: legal transitions are enforced from the lifecycle table and review-required tasks cannot be completed through this tool. However, it does not state what a successful call returns, whether the operation is logged in task history (the progress_note schema hints at it), or permission requirements.

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, under 30 words, with the core purpose stated first and the most important constraint immediately after. Every clause earns its place and the wording avoids restating the tool name.

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?

The schema fills in parameter details, transition legality, error code -32602, and the chap.task.complete alternative, so much of the context is covered. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the definition never describes the success response, side effects, or prerequisites, leaving an agent to guess what happens after a valid transition.

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 the baseline of 3 applies: every parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The description text itself adds no parameter semantics, but it does not need to because state, task_id, workspace, from, and progress_note are all documented.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Move a task to a new state,' and immediately narrows scope with the lifecycle-table constraint. The added clause that review-required tasks cannot be completed here differentiates chap.task.update from chap.task.complete without requiring an agent to open another tool.

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 lifecycle-table constraint tells the agent when calls will be accepted (legal transitions only) and the review-required sentence is a clear when-not. The state parameter's description names chap.task.complete as the alternative for review-required completion, but the main description does not give broader routing guidance among the many sibling task/control tools.

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