weeek_update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical non-obvious API behavior: 'description is NOT updatable — WEEEK's API silently ignores it on update.' This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent avoid costly mistakes. It does not mention return format or side effects, but the core hazard is well covered. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 long, front-loading the main purpose and then adding a critical caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. This is an example of concise, well-structured documentation.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: operation, target fields, and a critical limitation. It does not discuss return values or error scenarios, and the 'due' date format is unspecified, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity. The explicit alternative for description updates adds completeness to the overall workflow.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add some meaning by stating which fields are updatable ('title or due date'), and it warns against passing description (though description is not in the schema). However, it does not explain the expected format for 'due' (e.g., date string format) or clarify that 'id' is the task identifier. The schema property names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description leaves room for ambiguity.

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 the tool's function: 'Update an existing WEEEK task's title or due date.' It uses a specific verb ('Update'), names the resource ('existing WEEEK task'), and lists the updatable fields. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that description is not updatable and pointing to weeek_create_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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: use this tool to update title or due date, and do NOT use it for description updates. It names the alternative ('set the description at create time (weeek_create_task) or edit it in the UI'), covering both when to use and when not to use the tool.

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