update-tasks

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint: true). The description adds context about what fields are updated but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, atomicity, or idempotency (idempotentHint: false). Little extra beyond annotations.

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 of 11 words, very concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it could benefit from more structure to list the main updated fields or provide a usage hint.

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 of batch updating with 13 optional fields, the description is too brief. It lacks information about partial updates, clearing fields (e.g., dueString: 'remove'), and the fact that multiple tasks can be updated in one call. The output schema exists but behavioral expectations for mutation are not covered.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the description adds minimal value. It summarizes key fields but does not provide usage examples or clarify the batch update nature of the array parameter.

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 the tool updates existing tasks and gives examples of updatable fields (content, dates, priorities, assignments). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add-tasks (creation) and complete-tasks (completion), though it could be more specific about batch update capability.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as complete-tasks or reschedule-tasks. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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