Update Task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a mutation tool it discloses nothing about permissions required, whether omitted fields are preserved (partial update) or cleared, whether closing a task has side effects, or whether changes are reversible.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action before the prerequisite. It is efficient and wastes no words, though it is arguably terse given the mutation semantics it omits.

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 schema fully documents the 7 parameters and there is no output schema to explain, but a mutation tool with zero annotations should say more about partial-update behavior and side effects. Minimum viable, with a clear behavioral gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters including id, title, closed, dates, assignee_id and description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing task') and names the service (Productive.io), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling productive_create_task or productive_delete_line_item, but the verb/resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 only guidance is 'Use productive_get_task first to see current values,' which gives a useful prerequisite but no when-to-use/when-not conditions and no routing to alternatives for other task operations. Usage is implied rather than explained.

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