update-tasks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is known to be a mutating operation. The description adds the key behavioral trait of partial updates ('Send only the fields that change'), which is not captured by annotations. It does not mention specific side effects (e.g., moving a task to a project also lifts it out of sections) but those are described in the parameter schema, so the description adds meaningful value beyond structured data.

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 that front-loads the purpose and immediately provides a critical usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is optimally concise for its informational load.

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 allows updating up to 25 tasks with many optional fields, the description gives a general overview and a key operational rule (partial updates). The presence of an output schema means return values need no explanation. It does not list all possible field types, but the 'including' phrasing makes that acceptable. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's scope without over-specifying.

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% because each property has its own description, so the schema already fully documents parameters. The tool description provides a high-level summary ('content, dates, priorities, and assignments') that adds grouping context but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 action ('Update existing tasks') and the scope ('content, dates, priorities, and assignments'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add-tasks (creation) and complete-tasks (state change). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 instruction 'Send only the fields that change' provides a concrete usage guideline, and the phrase 'existing tasks' implies this is for modifying existing items, not creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, though the sibling context and the word 'update' make that clear.

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