update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool updates status (claimed/in_progress) and notes, and that notes are saved to shared context tagged with the task ID. It also mentions lease renewal, which is not obvious from the schema. However, it does not describe potential side effects, rate limits, or authorization requirements.

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: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, list allowed statuses, and provide exclusion guidance. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 2 required), the description covers the essential behavior: updating progress, setting status, saving notes to shared context, and lease renewal. The output schema exists so return values are documented elsewhere. Sibling tools are numerous, and the description clearly distinguishes from finish tools. It is complete enough for an update operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'status' parameter can be 'claimed' or 'in_progress', and that 'notes' are saved to shared context visible to other agents. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it could be more explicit about the 'agent_id' purpose and the format of 'task_id'.

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 starts with 'Report progress on your claimed task and renew its lease,' which clearly states the tool's action (reporting progress and renewing lease) and the resource (claimed task). It distinguishes itself from siblings like claim_task, complete_task, and submit_for_review by noting that finishing goes through other tools.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to report progress and renew lease on a claimed task. It also provides clear exclusion guidance: 'Finishing goes through submit_for_review or complete_task instead,' helping the agent choose the correct tool.

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