タスク更新

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals a key behavior: partial updates preserve unspecified fields. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as error handling, authentication requirements, idempotency, or response format. The partial-update guarantee is valuable, but the description is not comprehensive for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and purpose, then the alternative. No filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract (partial update) and the main usage exclusion (complete-task). Parameter-specific details are handled by the schema. The description is adequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without missing crucial context.

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% – every parameter has a description. The tool description adds a global behavior (only specified fields change) but does not provide per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action ('部分更新' – partial update) on a specific resource (task) and immediately clarifies the partial-update semantics (only specified items change). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool complete-task, making its purpose 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 description explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: '完了にするだけなら complete-task を使う' (if you only want to complete, use complete-task). It provides clear context for partial updates but does not enumerate other alternative tools (e.g., move-task, delete-task), though the partial-update scope makes those less likely to be confused.

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