tasks_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update an existing task', implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Update an existing task', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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 (2 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meanings, behavioral traits, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to effectively select and invoke this mutation tool without additional information.

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 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not add any semantic information about the parameters (taskId and properties), such as what taskId refers to or what properties can be updated. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 'Update an existing task' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('task'), but it's vague about what aspects can be updated and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like tasks_batch_update or tasks_update (if present in a broader context). It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tasks_batch_update or tasks_create is provided. The description implies usage for updating tasks but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools listed (e.g., tasks_archive, tasks_get).

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