task_update

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does add real domain context: completing preserves the deadline and stops active debt accrual, reopening reuses the retained date. That is genuine side-effect disclosure an agent could not get from the schema. It omits other important traits: concurrency behavior via `expected_revision`, idempotent replay via `request_id`, and what happens on a stale revision.

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, zero padding, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the lifecycle caveats. The second sentence is dense but every clause (preserve deadline, stop debt, retained date on reopen) adds distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the read-modify-write lifecycle is partially covered. However, for a mutation tool with an `anyOf` schema (status-or-due), a free-form status string, and optimistic-concurrency parameters, the description leaves the agent without valid status values or guidance on supplying `expected_revision` — material gaps for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, but it explains only that `status` and `due` are the target fields. Critically, `status` has no enum and is a bare string, and the description never lists valid status values; it also does not say that a null `due` clears the deadline, nor explain `expected_revision` or `request_id` at the call site (the schema only references a 'replay contract').

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Update task status or deadline") and identifies the two mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what class of change this performs. It does not differentiate itself from similarly named siblings such as `task`, `revise`, or `replace`, leaving the agent to infer that those are for content edits and this is for status/date edits.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus `task` (read/other), `revise`, or `replace`, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is only implied by the phrase "status or deadline", which is a weak router when 30+ siblings exist.

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