update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that fields can be modified. It does not explain whether this is a partial update (only provided fields change) or a full overwrite, what happens to unspecified fields, whether timezone affects date/time values, or what response the agent can expect.

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 compact sentence with no redundant wording, and the main verb and resource appear immediately. It earns its place by listing the mutable fields, though it could have used the space more effectively by adding behavioral context.

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?

For a mutation tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It fails to convey partial-update semantics, required identifiers, timezone handling, or what happens on success or failure, leaving the agent to infer critical calling conventions.

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 description must compensate. It maps five parameters (title, body, importance, dueDateTime, reminderDateTime) to recognizable field names, but it omits the required listId and taskId, and does not clarify timeZone or date-time format expectations. This is partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('修改' = modify) and clearly names the resource (Microsoft To Do task) plus the exact fields it changes: title, body, importance, due date, or reminder. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like create_task and complete_task by focusing on updating existing task fields, though it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus list_tasks, create_task, or complete_task. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing task ID, nor any exclusion like 'use complete_task to mark a task done instead.'

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