update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions 'update' which implies mutation, but does not detail any side effects, prerequisites (like needing the task to exist), or whether it does partial updates. There is no mention of permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is too brief to be transparent about the tool's runtime 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?

A single sentence that is directly informative, with the core verb and resource front-loaded and examples in parentheses. Every word earns its place, with no waste or redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters and a conditional requirement (listId), but the schema fully documents them. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't clarify return values, partial update semantics, or failure behavior, leaving some contextual gaps. It is adequate but not rich enough to fully compensate for missing annotations.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, including relevant details like status enum values and optionality. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema by giving examples of what 'update' might mean, but doesn't introduce new param semantics. A baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Update an existing task') and provides concrete examples ('mark as complete, change summary'), making it distinct from sibling tools like create_task and get_tasks. It unambiguously identifies the resource (task) and the operation (update).

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 implies usage context: use for modifying an existing task, with examples of common updates. It doesn't explicitly exclude creation or retrieval, but the verb 'update' and phrase 'existing task' clearly distinguish from create_task and get_tasks. No explicit alternatives are named, but the context is clear enough.

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