Update A Task Item Comment

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update), the HTTP method is PATCH, and the tool returns the updated comment. This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 brief and to the point, with the main action in the first sentence. It includes key information about partial updates, return value, required parameters, and API reference. However, the sentence 'Updates the specified Tasks...' is redundant and contains a typo.

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 simple update tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: it updates a task item comment, only supplied fields are changed, and it returns the updated comment. It also mentions required parameters and the endpoint. It does not discuss error handling or permissions, but annotations partially compensate.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 12 parameters (100% coverage). The description only repeats the required parameters, which is already in the schema. It does not add new insights about parameter usage or format beyond the schema.

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 it updates a task item comment and returns the updated comment. It mentions the path parameter 'id' and that only supplied fields are changed. However, it refers to 'Tasks' instead of 'task item comments', causing slight ambiguity. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar update tools, but the specificity of 'task item comment' is sufficient.

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 says 'Use this to update an existing Tasks (only the supplied fields are changed)' and lists required parameters. It implies when to use but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Given the large number of sibling update tools, this is a missed opportunity.

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