runrunit_update_task

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains custom field storage but does not state whether the update is partial/merge or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, required permissions, or what the response contains. These are important gaps for a mutation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then covers special-case parameters, then routes to a sibling tool. A small amount of redundancy with the schema's custom-field mapping exists, but the extra explanations earn their place.

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 an update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers main usage well and resolves the tricky PR/branch-link parameter choice. However, it does not explain merge semantics, whether additionalProperties keys are accepted, error behavior, or return values, so it is not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their descriptions. The description adds value by giving usage examples, clarifying the distinction between the two branch-link parameters, and explaining that link_da_branch_relatorio is for task reports.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a task on Runrun.it.' It clearly states the required inputs (task ID and fields object) and gives concrete examples. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling runrunit_move_task_stage by explicitly delegating column moves to that tool.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use link_da_branch vs link_da_branch_relatorio, including the context of task reports. It also explicitly redirects column moves to runrunit_move_task_stage, preventing misuse of update_task for stage changes.

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