update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: atomic operation, idempotence, and the optional actions. This is sufficient to understand the tool's nature, though additional details about potential side effects (e.g., knowledge episode writing) are left to the schema.

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 extremely concise with two sentences containing no filler. Every phrase adds value, clearly stating purpose, optional actions, idempotency, and replacement of sibling tools.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level context for an agent to understand the tool's role. It explains the atomic transition and replacement of fan-out tools. Minor gap: does not explain default log_type behavior or valid status transitions, but these are covered by schema enums.

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 coverage is high (78%) and most parameters have descriptions. The description does not add detail beyond the schema, providing only high-level context. Since baseline is 3 for high coverage, this score is appropriate.

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?

Description specifies 'Atomic task state transition' with clear verb and resource. It details that it updates status, optionally appends log entry, and optionally releases claim. It also distinguishes itself by stating it replaces three previous tools (quick_status, add_log, release_task), which helps with identification.

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 explicitly says 'Replaces quick_status + add_log + release_task fan-out,' indicating when to use this tool instead of multiple others. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like the sibling 'release_task' for cases where only claim release is needed.

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