update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a mutation operation but lacks details on side effects, authorization, idempotency, or behavior on invalid fields. Minimal transparency beyond the core operation.

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, one sentence. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could afford a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 the high parameter count (18) and lack of schema descriptions, output schema, or annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It provides no guidance on required parameters, return format, or validation. The agent has insufficient context to use the tool reliably.

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%, and the description adds no meaningful information about any of the 18 parameters. It only mentions 'editable fields' generically, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the schema alone, which has no descriptions.

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 it patches a subset of editable fields on a task. It distinguishes from the sibling create_task (creation) and complete_task (specific state change). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update tools like update_goal or update_note, though the resource is different.

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 implies use for partial updates but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like complete_task, defer_task, or delete_task. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice.

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