ticktick_update_task

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the fetch-then-merge approach ('Fetches the current task first, then applies your changes on top'), clarifies that unspecified fields are preserved, and provides format examples for due dates. Annotations cover idempotency and non-destructive nature, but the description adds practical implementation details.

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?

Perfectly structured with clear sections: purpose statement, behavioral explanation, Args with parameter details, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core update behavior explained first.

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?

Complete for an update tool with good annotations and output schema. The description covers purpose, behavioral approach, all parameters with semantics, return format, and practical examples. With annotations covering safety profile (non-destructive, idempotent) and output schema presumably documenting return structure, the description provides excellent contextual coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (context signals show Parameter count: 1, Required parameters: 1), the description carries full burden. It provides clear semantics for all parameters: explains task_id and project_id are required, documents optional fields with examples (due date format) and priority mapping (0=None, 1=Low, 3=Medium, 5=High). This fully compensates for the schema 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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and resource 'existing TickTick task', distinguishing it from siblings like create_task, delete_task, and complete_task. It specifies that only provided fields are changed, which differentiates it from a full replacement operation.

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 implies usage through examples like changing due dates or priorities, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like complete_task or delete_task. It mentions fetching current task first, which provides some context but not explicit guidance on tool selection.

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