update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It reveals that setting 'complete' to True completes the task and False reopens it, which is behavioral. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like side effects, permission requirements, or return value, leaving significant gaps.

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 concise with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean parameter list. Every line adds value, and the structure is front-loaded. Minor improvement could be merging the purpose line with the argument list into a more seamless sentence, but it is efficient as is.

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?

Given no output schema, the description omits the return value or success indicator. For a medium-complexity tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, it covers the 'what' but not the 'what happens after'. Additionally, sibling tools exist but no guidance on when to use them is provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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%, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains that 'description' is a new description defaulting to None, 'complete' controls completion state, and 'assignee_id' sets a new assignee. This goes beyond the bare schema types and adds actionable guidance for the agent.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a task's description, completion state, or assignee' with a strong verb and specific resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'complete_task' or 'reopen_task' which overlap with the completion state update.

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 implies usage via parameter explanations (e.g., 'leave None to keep current'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'complete_task' or 'reopen_task'. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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