clio_update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain partial update semantics, whether unspecified fields are preserved, permission requirements, or return behavior. The agent is left uninformed about side effects beyond the simple update action.

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?

One sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits critical details like partial vs. full update behavior, response format, or error conditions, making it incomplete for safe and confident invocation.

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?

The description maps several schema parameters to natural-language actions (rename→name, reschedule→due_at, reassign→assignee_id, priority, description), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable, though id and format details are not covered.

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 clearly states 'Update a task' and enumerates the specific actions (rename, reschedule, reassign, change priority/description), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like clio_create_task or clio_complete_task. The verb and resource are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clio_complete_task for status changes or clio_get_task for reading. The usage is implied by the name but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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