update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that updates are partial and that null removes dueDate. It does not disclose side effects, required identifiers' roles, permissions, idempotency, or what the response contains, which leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentence packs the core action, supported fields, allowed status values, and the dueDate-null caveat. It is front-loaded and every phrase adds value with no filler.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only source of guidance. It covers the main fields but omits success/error behavior, provider disambiguation, required-parameter semantics, and how this relates to overlapping siblings like complete_task.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for status ('completed'/'needsAction'), title, notes, and dueDate null semantics. It does not clarify that listId and taskId are identifiers or explain the provider parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 the verb ('Update'), the resource ('a task'), and the partial-update scope, and enumerates exactly which fields can be changed. It is distinguishable from create/get/delete siblings, though it does not explicitly address the overlap with complete_task, which may also set status to completed.

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?

Usage context is implied by the field list: use this when updating status, title, notes, or dueDate. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, such as 'use complete_task for simple completion' or 'use move_task_between_lists to change the list.'

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