upservice_update_task

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that only provided fields are changed and omitted ones remain unchanged, which goes beyond the annotations. No mention of side effects or authorization, but the annotations cover the non-destructive nature.

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 concise with a clear first sentence defining the action, followed by a brief explanation of partial update behavior. The Args and Returns sections are well-structured and not redundant. Every sentence adds value.

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 (multiple optional fields, partial update) and the presence of a detailed schema and output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It explains the update semantics and return format. Could optionally mention that date fields are ISO 8601, but that is already in the schema.

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?

Although context indicates 0% schema description coverage, the actual input schema provides detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context for 'mentions' and 'extra_fields' beyond the schema, helping the agent understand their purpose. The listing of fields in the description is beneficial.

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 'Partially update a task's fields' with a specific verb and resource. It lists example fields (title, description, dates, responsible, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like create or delete tasks. The partial update behavior is explicitly emphasized.

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 explains the partial update behavior and lists updatable fields but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus more specific siblings like upservice_update_task_status or upservice_update_task_estimation. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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