paymo_update_task

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

The description reveals a critical behavior—that Paymo forces status to Complete/Backlog and will overwrite the status argument. However, the schema for the complete parameter already notes that it resets status, so this is partially redundant. It adds explanatory detail but lacks other behavioral disclosures like permissions or partial update semantics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence earned its place, with no wasted words.

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?

The schema covers all parameter descriptions, but the tool description does not explain whether omitted fields are left unchanged, nor does it describe the return value. These are important for an update tool, especially without an output schema. The description covers the main pitfall but leaves these gaps.

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 description clarifies the status parameter by specifying 'numeric id or a slug alias' with an example (in_progress), which is more concrete than the schema's 'Workflow status id or alias.' It also highlights the cross-parameter conflict with complete. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the added example and interaction guidance elevate it.

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 opens with 'Update a Paymo task,' clearly stating the action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as paymo_create_task and paymo_get_task.

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 provides an explicit instruction not to send complete and status together, explaining the forced status behavior. It does not mention alternative tools for other scenarios, but the primary usage context is clear.

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