ytptube_update_task

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

The description adds a thin layer of behavioral context by mentioning 'API PUT contract', implying a full resource replacement (as opposed to a partial patch). However, it does not disclose consequences of omitted fields, whether the response returns the updated task, or any permission requirements. Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not destructive (destructiveHint: false), so the description adds only marginal value beyond the structured data.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the core action, resource, and HTTP method without any wasteful words. It is perfectly concise for the information it provides, though that information is limited.

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?

The tool deals with a nested object containing 10 properties and has no output schema, yet the description offers no information about return values, default behavior for missing fields, or interaction with other task-related tools. This is a significant gap for an update operation that could have side effects on task configuration.

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?

The description gives no explanation of the parameters 'id' and 'task' or the nested object's properties. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter semantics, and it fails to do so. The agent must rely entirely on the raw schema, which lacks any property descriptions.

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 action ('Replace') and the resource ('a scheduled task'), and it mentions the HTTP PUT contract, which distinguishes it from the sibling tool ytptube_patch_task (which likely performs a partial update). This gives the agent a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation from alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ytptube_patch_task or ytptube_create_tasks. The 'PUT contract' hint implies full replacement, but the description does not state when to choose this over a PATCH or create operation, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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