tasks_update

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. 'Update an existing task' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, error handling, or what happens to unspecified properties. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it lacks detail, every word earns its place by conveying the essential function without redundancy.

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 complexity (mutation tool with 2 parameters, nested objects, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, or output expectations. For a tool that modifies data, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for reliable agent use.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain that taskId identifies the task and properties contains the fields to update (like hs_task_body, hs_task_priority). With 2 parameters and nested objects, the description adds no semantic value beyond what's inferable from the schema structure.

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's vague about what specifically can be updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like tasks_batch_update or tasks_archive, which handle different update scenarios. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing taskId), when to use tasks_batch_update for multiple tasks, or when tasks_update is preferred over tasks_create for new tasks. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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