task_update

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

The description discloses that 'Требует подтверждения пользователя' (requires user confirmation), which is not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true). This adds an important behavioral detail about the interaction flow, complementing the destructive hint without contradicting it.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and the key constraint. No filler words; every element contributes to the meaning.

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 straightforward update tool, the description covers the action, the partial-update rule, and the confirmation requirement. An output schema exists to document return values, so the description does not need to explain them. It could mention error cases or prerequisites, but those are not essential for a typical update call.

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%, so the 'fields' object is thoroughly documented with allowed field names and formats. The description's note about only sending changed fields is a usage guideline rather than new parameter semantics. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Изменить' – to change) and resource ('задачу' – task), making it obvious this updates an existing task. It is distinct from siblings like task_create, task_delete, and task_complete, so an agent can differentiate at a glance.

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 instruction 'Передавайте только изменяемые поля' (pass only the fields to be changed) provides clear guidance on how to use partial updates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context implies it is for editing an existing task, which is sufficient for most scenarios.

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