keap_update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states only 'Update an existing task' without disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling (e.g., if task_id is invalid), permission requirements, or side effects (e.g., whether updating a completed task resets it). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely brief (5 words), but it lacks necessary information. Conciseness is not just shortness; it should be efficiently informative. This description is under-specified and does not earn its place by providing value beyond 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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain important details like which fields can be updated (though schema lists them), the effect of omitting fields, or the expected response. The tool is complex enough to require more contextual information.

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%, with all 6 parameters having individual descriptions in the schema. The tool's description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Update an existing task', which does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate parameter descriptions.

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 is generic and does not distinguish from sibling tools like keap_complete_task (which specifically completes a task) or keap_create_task. The verb+resource is present but lacks specificity to differentiate from similar update tools.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as keap_complete_task (for completion) or keap_update_appointment (for different resources). The description fails to mention prerequisites or alternative scenarios.

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