update_task

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It gives format examples and says tags 'replace existing,' but it does not clarify whether omitted/null fields are left unchanged or explicitly cleared, nor does it mention validation rules (e.g., priority range, planned_start vs planned_end ordering) or error 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters. It is concise enough for the parameter count, though the 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given the output schema.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description lacks critical context: partial update behavior, null semantics, validation constraints, and when to use alternative update tools. It also duplicates the return value despite an output schema being present, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

All 9 parameters are listed with brief format examples (e.g., ISO datetimes, duration as hours) and the note that tags 'replaces existing.' However, the description does not explain the meaning of null defaults (no change vs clear) or the significance of fields like is_fixed and priority, leaving semantic gaps beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Update an existing task,' which is a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes from create_task and delete_task, but does not differentiate from siblings like set_task_tags or update_task_notes, which also modify tasks.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or scenarios where a more specific tool (e.g., set_task_tags) would be preferred.

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