update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that updates can be partial ('any combination of fields'), which is key behavioral context. However, it does not explain side effects, list replacement vs merge semantics, validation rules, or permission requirements, leaving notable gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists fields efficiently. It is slightly long due to the field enumeration but each element earns its place, with no redundant wording.

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?

Given 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It identifies all updatable fields but omits key invocation context such as why 'phase' is required and the auto-resolve behavior described in the schema. The description alone would leave an agent uncertain about required parameters for correctly targeting the task.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by grouping fields and clarifying that 'moving to a new phase' is supported, but it mainly reiterates what the schema already states. No significant new parameter meaning is added.

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 updates a task and lists specific updatable fields (name, description, status, priority, category, blocked_by, blockers, and moving to a new phase). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_task_status, start_task, complete_task, and block_task by emphasizing 'any combination of fields' and including phase movement.

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 usage for general task updates ('any combination of fields') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_task_status or start_task. It lacks explicit exclusions or guidance for specialized status-change tools, leaving usage somewhat implicit.

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