update_task

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mutation intent is consistent. It adds the WRITE_ENABLED=true precondition, which is useful context, but does not mention return values, partial update behavior, or error conditions. The added context is modest and does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that uses every word usefully, including the critical WRITE_ENABLED condition. No redundancy or padding exists.

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?

The tool is simple with two well-described parameters and safety annotations, but the description omits return-value behavior, error scenarios, and any distinction from complete_task or update_record. It is minimally viable but leaves meaningful gaps for an agent making an autonomous decision.

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%, with sys_id and fields already explained. The description adds no further meaning beyond 'fields' and 'task record', so it remains at the baseline without compensating for any lack of schema detail.

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 a specific action ('Update fields') and resource ('task record'), which distinguishes it from related sibling tools like get_task or complete_task. The scope is concrete and aligned with the tool name.

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 description provides a prerequisite ('requires WRITE_ENABLED=true') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_record, complete_task, or more specific update_incident/update_change_request tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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