update_task

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals valuable behavior: only passed fields are changed, and fields are removed via `clear` rather than by passing null. This clarifies partial-update semantics and the destructive removal mechanism, which the raw annotations do not convey.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose and immediately explain the most important behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 schema covers parameter formats and required fields, while the description supplies the crucial partial-update and clearing semantics. The definition is sufficient for correct invocation, though it omits return-value expectations and does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings.

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 78%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds nuance around the `clear` parameter, but it does not compensate for the undocumented `title` and `important` parameters, leaving those meanings to inference.

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 verb and resource—'Change a task'—and adds the key semantic that it is a partial update. However, it does not differentiate update_task from its siblings beyond the tool name, and it doesn't enumerate which task fields can be updated.

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 offers no guidance about when to use update_task versus alternatives like create_task, delete_task, or rename_list. The mention of `clear` is operational parameter guidance, not selection criteria, so there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use context.

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