update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, error handling (e.g., when task not found), permissions needed, or whether the update is reversible. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 highly concise with only two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the key action and constraints. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and parameters but omits return values or success/failure indications. For an update operation with no output schema, the lack of any mention of what the tool returns or how to confirm success is a gap, making it only minimally complete.

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 0%, but the description clarifies that 'number' is a unique identifier with an example format, and that 'description' and 'status' are optional but at least one must be provided. It does not add additional meaning beyond the schema for the status enum or description type, but the usage constraint is helpful.

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 specifies the action (updates), resource (task), and the specific fields that can be updated (description and/or status), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_task or list_tasks.

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 states that at least one of 'description' or 'status' must be provided, giving a clear constraint. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, which would have earned a 5.

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