all the tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it's a mutation operation ('Updates'), requires specific IDs, and returns full task details. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, error conditions, or whether updates are atomic/partial. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second specifies requirements, third lists updatable fields with constraint, fourth describes return value. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: covers purpose, requirements, fields, constraint, and return value. However, it could better address sibling differentiation and provide more behavioral context (e.g., error cases, partial updates). Given the 100% schema coverage, it's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description mentions the three optional fields (description, priority, dependencies) and the requirement for at least one, but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Updates specific details'), resource ('existing task within a project'), and scope ('description, priority, and/or dependencies'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'addTask' (create new), 'deleteTask' (remove), and 'setTaskStatus' (only status changes).

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 provides clear context: requires project and task IDs, and at least one optional field must be provided. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'setTaskStatus' (for status-only updates) or 'expandTask' (for different operations).

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