Update Task

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

The description indicates it is a PATCH operation that only changes supplied fields and returns the modified object, which adds context beyond the annotations. However, annotations already show destructiveHint false and readOnlyHint false, so the behavioral insight is marginal. No contradictions with 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 somewhat redundant, repeating 'Update the specified Schedule (Legacy) records' twice. It includes optional API details (endpoint, Procore API category) which may help but also adds verbosity. Could be more concise without losing essential information.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description only states 'returns the modified object' without detailing return fields. The 'task' parameter is a nested object but the description offers no insight into its structure. For a tool with 3 parameters and nested objects, more context is needed for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description merely lists required parameters without adding new meaning. Since the schema already describes 'id', 'project_id', and 'task', the description adds no significant semantic value beyond enumeration.

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 it updates a Task/Schedule (Legacy) record and lists required parameters. However, it inconsistently refers to both 'Task' and 'Schedule (Legacy)', which may confuse the agent. It is fairly specific but lacks clear differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_task_item' or 'update_project_task_company'.

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 Schedule (Legacy) records' but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Among many similar update tools, the agent is left to infer the appropriate context without explicit exclusion criteria or comparative guidance.

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