update-task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates and can overwrite data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not disclose the partial-update semantics (omitted fields retained), null-clearing behavior for categoryUUID, or any consequence of a destructive update. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description still fails to contribute any behavioral context.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Nothing is front-loaded beyond a bare statement of purpose because there is nothing else to front-load.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain partial-update behavior, null semantics, and how the status/isCompleted fields interact. None of that appears; the definition relies entirely on the schema and annotations to make the tool callable correctly.

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 100%, and the schema itself documents each field thoroughly, including omit-to-keep semantics, the status enum values, the isCompleted backward-compatibility behavior, and how to obtain a category UUID. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does all the work.

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 verb and resource ("Updates a task"), which is minimally sufficient, but the qualifier "in the TODO feature" adds no real scope information and there is no differentiation from siblings such as create-task, delete-task, or update-calendar-date-memo. An agent knows broadly what the tool does but not what distinguishes it from adjacent tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as needing a todoUUID obtained from get-tasks-list (that detail lives only in the schema). The non-obvious choice between the `status` and `isCompleted` pathways is also left entirely to the schema descriptions rather than flagged in the description.

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