task_update

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

Description introduces non-idempotent behavior via the 'append' parameter (appending description multiple times yields different results), contradicting the idempotentHint=true annotation. This is a serious inconsistency.

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?

Well-structured with a brief intro, usage context, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

Covers parameters and usage thoroughly. Could mention return value or confirmation behavior, but output schema exists to provide that. The annotation contradiction detracts from 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed explanations for all 5 parameters, including defaults, behavior of 'append', and valid values for 'priority'. Fully compensates for schema gaps.

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?

Clearly states the tool updates a task's description, title, or priority, and provides specific use cases like recording progress notes or correcting metadata. Distinguishes from sibling tools like task_create, task_get, etc., by focusing on modification.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (progress notes, metadata correction) and notes that any agent can update, not just assignee. Lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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