update_task_retained_status

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral effects. While 'mutation' implies a write, it doesn't state what changes occur, whether it's reversible, or any prerequisites. The example includes unrelated query variables (after, filter, first, order), which adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 dense paragraph dominated by a large JSON example, much of which is irrelevant to the mutation. It lacks a clear, front-loaded statement of purpose; under-specification and clutter reduce readability.

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?

This mutation tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an incomplete description. It does not explain return values, side effects, or the meaning of 'retained'. The example is the only clue, making the description inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 schema's 'input' parameter is only described as a GraphQL type name, so the description compensates by showing the input structure with 'retained' and 'taskId' fields. However, the inclusion of extraneous query variables may mislead an agent about which parameters belong to the mutation.

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 merely restates the tool name as 'mutation updateTaskRetainedStatus' and provides an example variable object, but never explicitly states that it updates a task's retained status. The example input with 'retained' and 'taskId' hints at it, but it's not an actionable definition.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool or how it differs from sibling tools like update_task_state or retain_incident. The description lacks any context for when this mutation should be invoked.

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