Update Task

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by detailing partial update semantics, success return ('Returns the modified task on success'), and error payload behavior with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This adds rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 efficiently organized, starting with the action, then usage nuances, return/error behavior, required parameters, and API context. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure is logical and easy to parse.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully discloses the return value and error formats. It also specifies required parameters and the API endpoint, making it complete for a mutation tool with one nested object. The guidance on resolving id and partial updates covers the main operational ambiguities.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining the id parameter's resolution requirement and the partial-update behavior of the task object, adding meaning beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with 'Update the specified Task,' which is a specific verb plus resource, further clarified by 'Procore API: Project Management > Schedule (Legacy)' and 'Endpoint: PATCH /rest/v1.0/tasks/{id}'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, show_task, and delete_task.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Send only the fields you intend to change; omitted fields keep their current values' and 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' While it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use it, the precondition and partial-update guidance are clear and actionable.

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