task_update

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context about the 'append' parameter preserving history and permission notes ('Any project member can update tags'), going beyond the annotations to clarify non-destructive behavior and access control.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence followed by bullet-style parameter details. It is not overly verbose, though the 'Args:' section repeats schema info. It could be slightly more concise, but overall it is efficient.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient use-case context and permission details (tags). It does not explain return values or errors, but these are covered by the output schema. The description is reasonably complete for a straightforward update tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Omit to leave unchanged'), adding no significant new meaning. The explanation of 'append' is slightly more verbose but still largely redundant.

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 'Update a task's description, title, priority, project, or tags' with specific fields, and provides use cases like recording progress notes, correcting metadata, or transferring to a different project. This distinguishes it from siblings like task_comment and task_complete.

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 gives when-to-use examples (record progress notes, correct metadata, transfer project) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like task_comment for adding comments. It provides some context but lacks exclusions.

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