Update a task's title, priority, owner, plan reference, or notes using its ID to keep records current.
Update task title/priority/owner/plan_ref/notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| notes | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| plan_ref | No | ||
| priority | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether this is a partial or full replace, not what happens to omitted fields, not whether the id must already exist, not required permissions or reversibility. Only the implicit notion of mutation is conveyed.
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?
It is short and front-loaded with no filler, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. A single fragment is not enough structure for a six-parameter mutation tool.
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?
Six parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema means the description is the only source of semantics, and it omits almost everything an agent needs. Return values and error behavior are entirely undocumented.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it only lists field names already visible in the schema. It adds no meaning for priority (allowed range/scale), plan_ref (format or referent), owner (identifier format), or the required id, and never states that unspecified fields are left unchanged.
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?
Names a verb (Update) and resource (task) and enumerates the mutable fields, so the basic purpose is inferable. But it's a telegraphic fragment with no statement of what 'update' means here and no differentiation from mutating siblings like task_start, task_done, task_block, or task_sync_md.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus task_start/task_done/task_block for state transitions, or task_sync_md/task_from_plan for other kinds of task mutation. The caller is left to infer that this tool edits descriptive fields only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.