Atualizar task (webhook)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not move the task (implying no positional change). However, it omits details on authentication needs, side effects (e.g., audit logs), idempotency, error handling, or response format.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word earns its place: action name, critical constraint ('sem movê-la'), required element ('pelo menos um campo'), and a practical use case. No filler or redundancy.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description could be more comprehensive. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions (e.g., what happens if updates object is empty), or rate limits. It compensates partially with the SDD use case but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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% (both parameters documented), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that at least one sub-field in 'updates' is mandatory (not enforced by schema) and by providing a concrete example for the 'description' field (SDD attachment). This helps the agent understand parameter constraints beyond 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 it updates existing tasks without moving them, distinguishing it from sibling move tools. It also specifies the action name 'updateTask' and a common use case (attaching generated SDD). However, it does not explicitly contrast with assign_task or create_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 mentions that at least one field in 'updates' is required and gives a typical use case (attaching SDD). But it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like move_task_and_update or assign_task, and does not mention prerequisites or context.

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