Update an existing task by task_id, sending only the fields that changed such as title, status, notes, priority, or deadline.
Обновить задачу по task_id (передаются только изменяемые поля)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| deadline | No | ||
| priority | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys only that unspecified fields are left alone; it says nothing about permissions, whether omitted-vs-null fields differ, error behavior, or what a status change entails.
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?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the identifier and the partial-update rule. Nothing is padded, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient: the agent learns neither the updatable field set, the accepted values, nor the effect of the call.
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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only names task_id and alludes vaguely to 'изменяемые поля' without listing or explaining any of the five mutable fields (notes, title, status, deadline, priority) or their formats.
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 gives a specific verb + resource ('Обновить задачу' = update a task) and identifies the key parameter (task_id). It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling mutation tools such as bort_task_close, which also acts on a task.
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 parenthetical '(передаются только изменяемые поля)' implies partial-update semantics, which is useful guidance. But there is no statement of when to use this versus bort_task_close or bort_task_create, nor any preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.