update_taskModify editable fields on a Zero task, including title, status, due date, priority, and description, after explicit user request.
Update editable fields on a user-accessible Zero task. Call only after the user explicitly requests the change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| due_date | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Input schema / properties / due_date / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "format": "date-time",
- "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$",
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z|([+-](?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d)))$",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds some context: only user-accessible tasks are targetable and only editable fields change. Yet it does not disclose important update semantics — whether omitted fields are preserved or reset, whether due_date can be cleared with null, or what happens on an invalid or inaccessible task_id. No contradiction with annotations, but behavior is only thinly described.
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, both earning their place: the first delivers verb, resource, and scope; the second adds the user-consent precondition. The description is front-loaded, contains no filler, and does not restate the tool name or title.
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 destructive mutation tool with six parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves failure behavior (missing or inaccessible task), partial-update semantics, and the meaning of optional/nullable fields unaddressed. An agent would need external knowledge or guesswork to invoke it fully correctly.
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 0% for all six parameters, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameter meaning — but it names none of them, referring only generically to 'editable fields.' The role of task_id as the sole required locator, the status enum, the priority const values, and the nullable due_date semantics must all be inferred from the raw JSON schema. This does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update editable fields on a user-accessible Zero task') and scopes the operation precisely: only existing user-accessible tasks, only their editable fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, get_task, and list_tasks without needing to open the schema. No tautology or ambiguity.
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 second sentence provides a clear when-to-call rule: 'Call only after the user explicitly requests the change,' which guards against autonomous agent-initiated mutations. However, it does not state when not to use the tool, what prerequisites must hold (beyond user-accessibility), or name alternatives. The when is explicit, but exclusions and alternatives are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.