update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Update a task' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permission requirements, whether updates are reversible, what happens to unchanged fields, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant transparency gap.

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 maximally concise with just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring framework, 'every sentence should earn its place' and this single sentence contains no wasted words. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful update, what values are returned, error handling, or behavioral constraints. The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema alone, missing important contextual information about the update operation.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 'Update a task' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_note' or clarify what aspects of a task can be updated. While the verb 'update' is clear, the description lacks any detail about scope or resource characteristics.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a task UUID), differentiate from similar tools (like 'complete_task' or 'update_note'), or indicate appropriate contexts for task updates versus other operations. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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