Update Task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses important behaviors: partial updates only, automatic setting of completed_at when status is 'done', and conflict handling. However, it does not mention authorization, side effects on other fields, or rate limits.

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 relatively concise with three sentences covering main behavior and conflict handling. It could be more structured but avoids verbosity.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core update behavior and a specific edge case (conflict), but is incomplete regarding response format, mutation of other fields, and prerequisites.

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 50%, but the tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. It does not describe any of the 12 parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's incomplete 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 'Update any fields on a task. Only provided fields are changed.' This specifies the verb (update) and resource (task), and the partial update semantics distinguish it from sibling tools like assign_task or complete_task.

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 includes conflict handling instructions ('If response contains conflict field... present options... retry'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like assign_task or complete_task. The usage context is implied but not stated.

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