update_task_state

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It never explains what the mutation does, what side effects occur, what permissions are needed, or what the return value looks like. The only behavioral hint is the word 'mutation' and the example input with 'newState', which is insufficient.

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 not a well-structured human-readable explanation. It begins with a context label, lists variable names redundantly, and then dumps a large JSON example. While the example is potentially useful, the overall format is clunky and does not use concise prose to convey meaning efficiently.

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 description is completely inadequate for a 6-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, response format, or how parameters interact. An agent would be unable to use this tool correctly without significant additional inference or trial.

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?

Although the schema has 100% description coverage, each description is only 'GraphQL: String' or similar, providing no semantic meaning. The description does not explain the parameters beyond listing them and giving one example. The example clarifies that 'input' contains 'newState' and 'taskId', but the roles of 'after', 'filter', 'first', and 'order' remain unexplained, and the parameter descriptions do not compensate.

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 is essentially a schema dump: 'Tasks · mutation updateTaskState. Variables: ...' It does not explicitly state that the tool updates a task's state. The example input shows 'newState' and 'taskId', which lets an agent infer the purpose, but the description itself is tautological (restates the tool name) and lacks a clear verb+resource statement.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_drp_alert_state, update_incident_state, or update_discover_task_state. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions.

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