update_task_details

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the important ownership/permission constraint: only tasks you hold or unclaimed tasks are editable. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first gives the action and a realistic use case, the second states the critical ownership rule. No fluff 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?

With 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential use case and the key access restriction. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema exists, so that's not required. Could mention effects like label-append behavior, though that's already in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters in detail. The description names 'description, deadline or labels' but adds nothing beyond the schema's own per-field descriptions. Baseline 3 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 uses the verb 'Refine' with a clear object (task's description, deadline or labels), identifying exactly which fields this tool modifies. While it overlaps with sibling tools like set_task_labels and update_checklist, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from them, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: after investigating what the work actually involves. It also provides a clear exclusion: only tasks you hold or unclaimed tasks can be edited, never another worker's task. It doesn't name specific alternative tools, so not a 5.

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