yougile_update_task

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: the soft-delete mechanism (deleted=true) and how to delete deadline/time tracking via nested {deleted:true}. It also discloses that certain fields can be removed, which goes beyond the schema and annotations. No contradictions found.

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 appropriately front-loaded with 'Update a task' and then lists the mutable fields and key deletion semantics. It is compact given the number of fields, though the list could be seen as slightly verbose. Each sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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 is complex (14 parameters, nested objects) with no output schema, and the description provides a high-level overview plus important deletion notes. However, it does not describe the return value, error behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., permissions), which would be helpful given the rich schema. The schema covers parameter details, but the description could offer more guidance on expected outcomes.

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 value by clarifying the non-obvious deletion behavior for deadline/timeTracking and the soft-delete flag, which are not fully obvious from the schema alone. It doesn't repeat all parameter details but supplements the schema effectively.

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 'Update a task' and enumerates the mutable fields, making it distinct from sibling tools like create_task, get_task, and list_tasks. The verb 'update' plus resource 'task' is specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool (to modify an existing task) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as 'use yougile_create_task to create a new task.' The listing of mutable fields provides clear context for what can be changed, though no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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