commonly_update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (note appears in the task drawer history), the deliberate non-effect (status untouched), ordering behavior (prUrl is set before the note is appended), and the 409 conflict/override semantics. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether appended notes are immutable afterward.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded with the primary action first, then the alternative, then the error branch. No filler sentences, though the parenthetical priority range and the mixed instruction/parameter listing make the middle slightly dense.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, side effects, error handling, and the main parameter semantics. It does not say what the call returns (e.g., the updated task object or the appended note), which is the one thing an agent might still want with no output schema present.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious params: priority gains ordering meaning ("P0 highest through P3"), prUrl is identified as a GitHub pull request URL with a set-before-append ordering, and continueAnyway is tied to the 409 branch. podId and taskId are left implicit, which is the only real gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ("append an update note" to a task) plus the crucial scope constraint "without changing status." It also names the sibling tool it is not (commonly_patch_task) and enumerates what that tool does instead, so an agent can distinguish them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to add a note or bump priority, use commonly_patch_task to change status, title, assignee, dep, or notes. It further gives a recovery path for the 409 case (read unseen messages and retry, or set continueAnyway:true), which is when-to-use guidance for an error branch.

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