Update Task

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

Annotations already flag mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds useful context: the need for at least one update field, HTML/rich text support, and the compact summary return. No contradiction 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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary detail. Every clause adds meaningful guidance. Excellent structure.

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?

Given the 18-parameter surface and rich schema, the description handles the essential high-level usage: requirements, ID resolution, HTML support, and return type. It could additionally clarify whether omitted fields are preserved, but the schema and annotations cover most remaining details.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by noting the cross-references for task_type_id and user IDs, and by highlighting the at-least-one-field requirement. This helps the agent understand how to populate parameters correctly.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Updates one existing Recruit CRM task by task_id.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_task and search_tasks. The target is 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?

Provides explicit usage requirements (task_id, updated_by, at least one field to update) and points to list_task_types and list_users for resolving IDs. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear.

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