update_farm_taskUpdate a farm task's status after producer approval, and optionally set or clear its due date. Omitting due_date preserves the existing date; null clears it.
After producer approval, update task status and optionally its due date. An explicit null clears the date; omission preserves it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | ||
| farm_id | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| due_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral nuance (null clears vs. omission preserves the due date), but says nothing about permissions, valid status transitions, or what the call 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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the precondition plus the core mutation behavior are front-loaded before the null/omission caveat.
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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description omits the return shape, error behavior on invalid status, and the meaning of farm_id versus task_id. It covers the trickiest edge case well but leaves real gaps an agent would hit.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only explains due_date's null-vs-omitted semantics. farm_id and task_id are left entirely undefined, and status semantics beyond the enum values in the schema are not elaborated.
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 (update) and resource scope (task status and optional due date), and the precondition 'after producer approval' frames it precisely. It does not explicitly contrast with list_farm_tasks or any other sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
'After producer approval' gives a concrete precondition for when this tool applies, which is more than most siblings offer. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming an alternative path for unapproved tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.