update_farm_task

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false∵. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: the special semantics for due_date (null clears, omission preserves). It does not contradict annotations; in fact, it aligns with idempotency. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like authorization requirements or side effects beyond the status change, so it adds only moderate value.

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 one sentence of moderate length, front-loading the main purpose ('After producer approval, update task status') and then adding the critical due_date nuance. It is efficient with words, but the phrasing 'An explicit null clears the date; omission preserves it' is slightly dense; however, it earns its place. No wasted words, but it could be split into two sentences for readability.

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 tool has 4 parameters, with 2 required, and no output schema. The description covers the key state-changing aspects (status and due_date) and the approval precondition. However, it does not explain what happens to other fields like farm_id, or whether status change is final, nor does it provide any return-value information. Given the moderate complexity and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more 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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description explains the behavior of due_date (null clears, omission preserves), which adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's type and pattern. It does not explain status enum values, but those are self-explanatory (TODO, DONE, CANCELLED). Given the lack of schema descriptions, the description compensates well for the key ambiguous parameter.

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 (update) and resource (farm task), and specifies that it updates task status and optionally the due date after producer approval. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the use of 'farm_task' in the name and reference to producer approval provides decent distinction from general update tools like update_record.

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 phrase 'After producer approval' implies a precondition for usage, giving context about when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the conditional context is clear enough for an agent to infer it should be used only after approval. A stronger definition would name the alternative (e.g., create_farm_task) and explicitly state when not to use it.

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