ticktick_update_task

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds useful context about partial updates ('Only provided fields will be updated'), which isn't in annotations. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, both of which add value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides important behavioral context about partial updates. There's zero wasted text or redundancy.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with annotations covering safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and an output schema exists, the description provides minimal but useful context. However, it doesn't explain what fields can be updated, doesn't mention required parameters (task_id, project_id), and offers no usage guidance relative to sibling tools.

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%, meaning parameters are completely undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters beyond the generic 'fields', failing to explain what fields can be updated or their formats. However, since there's only 1 parameter (a nested object), the baseline is higher than for tools with many undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ticktick_create_task' by specifying it's for existing tasks, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other update tools like 'ticktick_update_project' or 'ticktick_update_folder'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing task_id and project_id), doesn't differentiate from other update tools (update_project, update_folder), and offers no context about when this is appropriate versus tools like 'ticktick_complete_task' or 'ticktick_move_task'.

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