Modify task fields like status, progress, assignee, and dates in agent-gantt project plans; set a date to null to clear it, and use actor=owner for claimed tasks.
Update supplied fields; null clears a date. Claimed tasks require actor=owner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| summary | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| assignee | No | ||
| due_date | No | ||
| progress | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| parent_task_id | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, and it usefully states that null clears a date and claimed tasks require actor=owner. It omits other mutation traits, including reversibility, status transition rules, and idempotency behavior, so it is incomplete for a 13-parameter update tool.
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 two clauses are compact and front-load the core update behavior and key constraints. However, for a tool with 13 parameters and no schema descriptions, the brevity borders on under-specification.
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 13 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It covers only two behavioral rules and leaves most parameter semantics, safety, and return behavior unaddressed.
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 13 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains nullable date clearing and the actor=owner requirement, but leaves most parameters such as status, progress, assignee, parent_task_id, and idempotency_key undocumented.
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 clear partial-update behavior for a task, with 'Update supplied fields' and special date-clearing semantics. However, it does not name siblings like create_task or coordinate, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the sibling tools. The description only gives parameter-level constraints such as null clearing a date and claimed tasks requiring actor=owner, not selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.