team_time_update_task

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds real value beyond them: omitted fields stay unchanged, null clears assignee/due date, [] clears tags. It omits the conflict/version behavior implied by the required expectedVersion, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: mutability semantics come first, then the clearing rules, then claimId and result. No filler, though the final clause about checkpoints is slightly vague.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition is close but incomplete — it never explains that expectedVersion must match the version read back, which is essential to calling it successfully.

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 0%, so the description must carry meaning, and it does explain tags, assigneeId, dueOn, claimId and result. It says nothing about expectedVersion (a required optimistic-concurrency token), projectId, title, description or taskId, leaving half of 10 params undocumented anywhere.

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 and resource ('Update ... fields') plus scope ('only supplied fields'), which distinguishes it from whole-record siblings like create_task. It does not, however, contrast itself with set_status or complete_task, which also mutate tasks.

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?

'after reading the task' and 'Supply claimId for claimed work' give concrete preconditions for correct invocation. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling (e.g. set_status for simple status changes) or rules for when not to update.

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