update_task

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a mutation. It never says whether progress is appended or overwrites prior state, what happens when optional fields like blocker or nextStep are null, or whether a permission/ownership check applies beyond the runId constraint.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the constraint and the alternative. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the most decision-relevant routing information comes first.

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?

For a ten-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, the definition is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants. It does cover the critical correctness constraint on runId, which prevents a common misuse, but the bulk of the payload semantics are undocumented.

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 0% across ten parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. Only runId receives any added meaning (it must belong to the current execution); taskId, summary, completedWork, currentStep, nextStep, blocker, requiredAction, handoffNote, and actorLabel are left completely undefined.

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 states a specific verb and object ("Record run-scoped progress for a running task") and names the sibling it is not (edit_inbox_task for correcting inbox task definitions). That said, "progress" is left abstract relative to the ten schema fields, so an agent cannot fully infer what recording progress entails.

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?

It supplies a hard precondition ("the runId must belong to the current execution") and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it ("Use edit_inbox_task to correct an inbox task definition instead"). It gives no guidance, however, on how this relates to lifecycle siblings like start_task, submit_for_review, or complete_review.

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