task_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior of updating fields, including the append parameter's effect. It does not mention undo, permissions beyond tags, or side effects, but overall it is clear for a straightforward update tool.

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 concise, with two introductory sentences followed by a clear list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 presence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context for using the tool correctly. It covers all parameters, usage scenarios, and has no major gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by paraphrasing each parameter and providing extra context (e.g., append behavior, tags permissions), going beyond the schema.

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 tool updates a task's description, title, priority, project, or tags. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the use cases (record progress notes, correct metadata, transfer tasks) distinguish it from siblings like task_create 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 explicitly says when to use the tool (record progress notes, correct metadata, transfer tasks) and mentions that any project member can update tags. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives beyond the implied differentiation.

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