Update a project task by sending only the fields you want to change, such as title, status, priority, due date, assignees, or linked assets. Unspecified fields stay unchanged.
Updates a task. Send only the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Request body for updating a task. Every field is optional - send only what you want to change. | |
| taskId | Yes | Task to update. | |
| projectId | Yes | Project the task belongs to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds PATCH-style semantics (omitted fields are untouched), which is useful, but says nothing about permission requirements or what the call returns for a complex multi-field mutation.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the operational constraint. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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 16-field nested mutation with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description leaves gaps: whether the updated task is returned, what errors occur for invalid SectionId/StatusId, and whether array replacements are additive or destructive. The schema carries most of the burden, keeping this at minimum-viable.
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 nested body schema is unusually rich, already documenting replacement vs. omission semantics (e.g. "Send an empty string to remove it", "Replaces the watchers outright"). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (updates) and resource (task), which cleanly separates it from the get/create task siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the verb makes the CRUD role unambiguous.
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?
"Send only the fields you want to change" conveys partial-update intent, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over gorelo_get_project_task or gorelo_create_project_task, no prerequisites (task must exist, projectId/taskId must be resolved first), and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.