update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Update an existing task' only conveys basic mutation semantics. It does not state what happens when the task does not exist, whether partial updates are supported, whether updates are reversible, what the response looks like, or any validation behavior — significant gaps for a write operation with no annotation support.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the core action. However, for a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this brevity crosses into under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — it is short but leaves too much unsaid.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 2 enums, sibling overlap with complete_task) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to clarify partial-update semantics, failure behavior on missing tasks, return value, or the relationship to sibling tools, all of which an agent would need for correct invocation.

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 baseline of 3 applies even though the description itself adds no parameter-level detail. The description does not compensate with syntax, ordering, or constraint hints, but the schema already documents each of the 7 parameters adequately, including enums for status and priority.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing task') and is clearly distinguishable from create_task, get_task, list_tasks, and init_project. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling complete_task, which is plausibly a specialized form of updating (marking a task as completed), so the agent cannot tell when to use which.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, notably no explicit distinction from complete_task or any statement about whether update_task is the generic status-update path. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the task needing to exist first, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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