update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies a mutation, but it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or side effects, which are crucial for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 input schema fully documents all 5 parameters (e.g., 'projectId' as GitLab project ID, 'state' with enum values). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples, which aligns with the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 'カンバンボードのタスクを更新' (Update a Kanban board task) clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('Kanban board task'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'delete_task', which would require specifying it's for modifying existing tasks rather than creating new ones or removing them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'create_task' or 'delete_task', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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