update_task

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, which is consistent with an update operation. The description adds the important behavioral note that 'clear_due_date removes a deadline', which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like required permissions, error handling, or side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with no annotations covering those aspects.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and then add a key parameter detail. It is concise and structured, earning a 4, though a bit more context could be added without sacrificing 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?

Given the complexity of an update tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits explanations for most parameters, error conditions, return values, and concurrency handling despite mentioning versioning. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool reliably.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only explains 'clear_due_date' and hints at versioning; the other six parameters (task_id, expected_version, title, status, due_date, priority, description) receive no semantic explanation. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool, so a 2 is appropriate.

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 supplied fields') and references the versioning mechanism ('using the current version'). It distinguishes update from siblings like create_task and archive_task, though it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_task or archive_task, and no prerequisites or usage context are stated. The description only implies usage for updating existing tasks, which is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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