update_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Update' without disclosing whether it performs partial updates, what happens with invalid IDs, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it may be too terse to convey important nuances, though this does not undermine its brevity.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention that task_id is required, explain partial-update behavior, or differentiate from update_task_status. The schema covers param details but not broader usage context.

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 input schema fully describes all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by listing some parameter names (title, description, estimates, acceptance criteria) but omits priority and task_id, and the word 'like' indicates non-exhaustive examples.

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 uses a clear verb-resource structure ('Update task details') and lists example fields (title, description, estimates, acceptance criteria). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task and update_task_status, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_task_status. The description implies usage from the name but gives no exclusions or recommendations.

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