update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a benefit ('keeps progress accurate') and does not disclose effects on unspecified fields, partial update behavior, or any preconditions. For a mutation tool, 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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Update task execution state'), and includes a benefit clause. It is concise and free of fluff, though the vagueness of 'details' slightly reduces precision. It earns a solid score for structure.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain step update semantics, how to unlink a milestone, or what occurs after the update. The tool's complexity demands more detailed guidance beyond the current one-liner.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description adds only a high-level grouping ('status/steps/details') and does not deepen understanding of parameters like step_id/step_status relationships or milestone linking behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as updating task execution state, covering status, steps, and details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task/delete_task and update_milestone by focusing on task execution state, though the term 'details' is somewhat vague.

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 implies usage for keeping progress accurate during handoffs and resumption, giving some context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so usage guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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