nexus_task_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect of unblocking dependents, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the task itself beyond status change. It adds some behavioral context beyond 'update' but lacks depth.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the action and key information. Every word earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema information.

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?

Despite being a simple mutation, the tool has side effects (unblocking dependents) and optional parameters (error/result) that are not explained. With no annotations or output schema, the agent cannot fully predict the tool's behavior or know when to include error/result, leaving significant 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the status parameter values (completed/failed/in_progress), leaving id, error, and result unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly use optional parameters.

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's action: updating task status with explicit allowed values (completed/failed/in_progress). It also mentions the side effect of unblocking dependents, which distinguishes it from siblings like nexus_task_submit and nexus_task_status.

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 when to use this tool (when a task's status changes and dependents need unblocking), but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools. There's no 'use this instead of X' guidance, so usage context is implied rather than clearly defined.

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