update_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It documents required and optional fields, input formats, and batch behavior, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial (only provided fields are changed) or full replacement of the task object. Also, it lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or side effects. This is a significant behavioral ambiguity for an update operation.

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 lengthy but well-structured with an Args list and examples. Every sentence serves a purpose; the length is justified by the complexity of the task parameters. It is front-loaded with the purpose and clearly organized, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming redundant wording.

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 the tool's complexity (many optional fields, batch support, timezone handling) and minimal schema, the description covers most necessary information. However, the partial vs. full update ambiguity is a gap that affects complete understanding. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, but the update semantics should have been clarified.

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?

The input schema is extremely generic (a single 'tasks' property with anyOf object/array and additionalProperties true), providing essentially zero parameter documentation. The description compensates fully by listing all required and optional fields, their types, formats (ISO datetime, IANA timezone), and even an example. This is high-value semantic clarification.

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 states it updates existing tasks, with specific verb+resource and scope ('one or more existing tasks'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_tasks, delete_tasks, and move_tasks by focusing on modification of existing tasks.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (updating existing tasks) and provides usage examples for both single and batch updates. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., use create_tasks for new tasks, move_tasks for moving between projects). It gives clear context without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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