update_task_status

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the mutation explicitly and specifies the exact effect of the completed flag, plus the return behavior. However, it omits details about matching semantics (e.g., first match vs. all matches, case sensitivity) and possible side effects, so it is adequate but not thorough.

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 tight and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a short Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 a three-parameter mutation tool, the core invocation details are covered and an output schema exists. Still, the description does not clarify ambiguous matching behavior or how this tool relates to complete_task/cancel_task, so an agent may not reliably distinguish the right tool without additional context.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It compensates fully by defining all three arguments, including the note path base, what task_pattern matches, and the boolean semantics of completed.

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') and resource ('task checkbox in a note'), and the parameter names align with the operation. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like complete_task or cancel_task, which are likely to overlap in intent.

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 about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling task-related tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only explains mechanics, not selection context.

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