update-tasks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, so the mutation risk is established. The description adds the important partial-update behavior—'Send only the fields that change'—which clarifies that omitted fields retain their values. It does not repeat all side effects, but those are thoroughly covered in the schema descriptions, and there is no contradiction with 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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists broad update categories, and states the essential partial-update rule. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or vague filler.

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 tool with a complex schema and many field interactions, the description provides a sufficient high-level overview and the crucial partial-update rule. The schema descriptions fully document the details (e.g., moving a project lifts the task out of sections/parents), and annotations signal destructiveness. The description is therefore complete enough for selecting and invoking the tool correctly, though it could explicitly mention choosing it over specialized siblings.

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%, with each parameter individually documented in detail. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the partial-update semantics (only changed fields need be sent) and by grouping key fields ('content, dates, priorities, assignments') to convey the general parameter categories. This enhances understanding of how parameters should be used.

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 the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource as 'existing tasks', with a clear list of updatable fields ('content, dates, priorities, and assignments'). This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like add-tasks (creation) and complete-tasks (status changes), so the purpose is both explicit and well-scoped.

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 use for modifying existing tasks and gives a key payload guideline ('Send only the fields that change'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over specialized alternatives such as reschedule-tasks or complete-tasks, nor does it list exclusions. The usage context is evident but not fully articulated.

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