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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., if task not found), or response format. The mention of 'found by name' hints at lookup behavior but lacks depth on how matching works or potential side effects.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update a task found by name') and follows with specifics on modifiable fields. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from parameter details.

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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors), output details, and usage guidelines. For a tool with significant mutation potential and low schema coverage, this leaves gaps that could hinder correct agent 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 low at 29%, with only 'task_name' and 'due_string' having descriptions. The description adds value by listing updatable fields ('content, description, due date, priority, project, or section'), which maps to most parameters, but doesn't provide syntax details (e.g., format for 'due_string' beyond 'natural language date') or clarify optional vs. required beyond the schema. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 action ('Update a task') and resource ('found by name'), with specific mention of what can be changed ('content, description, due date, priority, project, or section'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_task' and 'complete_task' by focusing on updates rather than creation or completion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_subtasks' which might also modify tasks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot update completed tasks), or comparisons to siblings like 'complete_task' for marking tasks as done. Usage is implied through the action but lacks explicit context for selection.

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