update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal that this is a mutation (though implied by 'update'), nor does it describe partial-update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved), idempotency, or validation behavior. For a state-changing tool with 15 parameters, this is a substantial transparency gap.

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 single sentence 'Update an existing task' is efficiently short with no waste. However, it is under-specified — this is not genuine conciseness but rather minimalism that sacrifices informational value. A sentence providing even a few key updatable fields would merit the same concision with better content.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 15 parameters, 2 requiring explanation (assignees nested object, custom_item_id nullable), no annotations, no output schema, and only 13% schema description coverage. The description 'Update an existing task' is wholly inadequate for an agent to safely invoke this tool — it doesn't enumerate updatable fields, explain partial-update behavior, or clarify ambiguous parameters. This is in the lowest tier of completeness.

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 13%, with only task_id and parent having descriptions in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameters. However, some params are self-explanatory by type/name (name, status, description, archived, priority). The baseline is 3 given low coverage but meaningful type hints; notably the nested assignees object and fields like custom_item_id, time_estimate, and the date_time booleans get no semantic explanation.

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 'Update an existing task' uses a clear verb+resource but is a tautology of the tool name (update_task). It provides zero detail about what specific aspects can be updated — no mention of status, priority, assignees, dates, or any of the 15 parameters. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, move_task_to_list, or duplicate_task which all relate to task manipulation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description doesn't mention it can change parent (reparenting), move status, or reassign — and doesn't clarify distinctions from move_task_to_list (which moves between lists) or update_goal/update_key_result. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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