update_task

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

The description explains that Feishu only patches fields listed in update_fields, a key behavioral trait. However, there is no annotation, and the description omits details on permissions, reversibility, or side effects of mutation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key requirement. Slightly burdened by version prefix '[Official API + UAT, v1.3.7]', which adds noise.

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?

Covers the critical update_fields nuance. Missing output description (no output schema) and error conditions. Schema details are good, but the description could elaborate on task object structure.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds an example for update_fields, adding marginal value. However, it does not explain the format of the task object values (e.g., due field expects timestamp object).

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 'Patch a task', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task or delete_task. However, it does not explicitly list the scope of patched fields, relying on the schema.

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 implies usage for general task patching and emphasizes that update_fields is required. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like complete_task or other update tools, leaving the agent to infer when to use this tool.

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