Modify a task's details, dependencies, or related files by task ID to keep your project plan accurate and current.
Update task details, dependencies, or related files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| taskId | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| dependencies | No | ||
| relatedFiles | No | ||
| implementationGuide | No | ||
| verificationCriteria | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It implies mutation but never says whether this is a partial/patch update or a full replace (critical with 8 optional fields), whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or how dependencies/files arrays are merged rather than overwritten.
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?
A single compact sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than being genuinely well-structured.
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?
An 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs substantially more from the description, and it delivers almost none of it. An agent has no way to know required permissions, merge semantics, or how the complex relatedFiles array should be populated.
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% across 8 parameters, so the schema offers no semantics at all. The description names dependencies and related files but omits name, description, notes, implementationGuide, and verificationCriteria, leaving most parameters undocumented by either source.
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?
States a specific verb (Update) and resource (task) and enumerates the categories it can change: details, dependencies, related files. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling mutation tools (delete_task, split_tasks, execute_task, verify_task), so an agent must still infer where it fits.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set containing delete_task, split_tasks, and verify_task. The agent gets no signal about which task state or workflow stage this tool is appropriate for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.