bitrix_update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It surfaces the confirm=true confirmation gate and frames the operation as safe/restricted, which is useful for a write tool. However, it does not disclose postconditions (e.g., whether unspecified fields are preserved), error behavior, permissions, or what the tool returns.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The field whitelist is front-loaded, followed immediately by the confirm requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 3-parameter write tool with a nested fields object and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core safety gate and scope but omits the response/return behavior, any field format expectations (e.g., DEADLINE), and what happens on partial updates. Adequate, but with clear 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents taskId, fields, and confirm. The description's enumeration of the four allowed fields mirrors the schema's field properties rather than adding new meaning. The restated confirm requirement adds no information beyond the schema's own description.

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 names a specific verb (изменить/update), the resource (task), and scopes the operation to a limited whitelist of fields (TITLE, DESCRIPTION, DEADLINE, PRIORITY). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bitrix_create_task, bitrix_start_task, and bitrix_move_task_stage, which perform different lifecycle operations.

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 'limited set of fields' phrasing conveys that the tool is for safe, scoped edits rather than general task mutation, but no alternative is named and no when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions are stated. The agent must infer the usage context from the field whitelist and the confirm=true requirement.

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