update_task

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

Discloses key behaviors: empty arguments leave unchanged, marking recurring task done auto-creates next occurrence, and output format (confirmation or not-found). Without annotations, this covers the main behavioral traits, though it doesn't address concurrency or permissions.

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?

Well-structured and efficient: opening purpose sentence, usage paragraph, Args list with clear formatting, and Returns section. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Comprehensive for a 7-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. Includes returns information, references sibling tools for ID lookup and deletion, and explains partial updates. With an output schema present, the description's return summary is sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: task_id is required and sourced from get_tasks, status has explicit allowed values, due_date has format, recurrence explains special value 'none' to clear. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema's defaults and empty strings.

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 tool updates an existing task and lists all modifiable fields (status, title, owner, notes, due date, recurrence). It positions itself as the companion to create_task and get_tasks, differentiating from delete_task.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (mark done/blocked, reschedule, reassign, edit details), how partial updates work (only passed fields changed), and side effects (recurring task completion creates next occurrence). Provides alternative tool names for finding task_id (get_tasks) and removing tasks (delete_task).

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