accelo_update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a partial update, what happens to unspecified fields, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter list. It is appropriately sized for a tool with nine parameters, though the list format repeats schema names and could be tighter in places.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It covers parameter meanings but omits usage context relative to sibling task tools, permission requirements, partial-update behavior, and any indication of return shape beyond 'fields: Additional fields to return.'

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%, so the argument list is the only semantic documentation. It adds useful details such as date_due being a unix timestamp and remaining being in seconds, and identifies several IDs as staff IDs. However, entries like 'New title' and 'New description' are tautological, so not every parameter gains meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing task.' This clearly identifies the operation as opposed to create/list/get siblings, but it does not differentiate from other task mutation tools such as accelo_progress_task_to_start or accelo_progress_task_to_done.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not distinguish this general update tool from specialized task-progression tools. An agent is left to infer all routing decisions from the name alone.

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