things_update_task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by naming exactly what destruction occurs (notes and tags replace existing values), adding an optimistic-concurrency guard parameter, a date format contract, and a hard scope limit. The remaining gap is 'verify each field', which is asserted but never explained (read-back? response field? failure mode?).

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and field list, followed by replacement semantics, concurrency, and format/limitation notes in descending order of importance. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 six-parameter destructive mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers every parameter, the replacement/destruction semantics, concurrency, and format. It leaves unclear what 'verify each field' actually produces and what happens when expected_modified_at fails, which with no output schema is a gap worth closing.

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 carries the load and does so for all six parameters: id (exact task), the four mutable fields, expected_modified_at (stale-edit guard), plus deadline's YYYY-MM-DD format. It omits schema constraints such as 20-tag max and field length limits, so it compensates but not completely.

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?

States a specific verb (update) plus the exact resource (task) and enumerates the mutable fields (title/notes/deadline/tags) against an 'exact task ID'. An agent can tell it apart from things_move_task/things_schedule_task/things_complete_task by the field set, but no sibling is named explicitly, which is the only thing keeping this from a 5.

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?

Gives real operating conditions: notes/tags replace rather than append, expected_modified_at exists to guard against stale edits, and 'clearing deadlines is outside v0.1' is an explicit when-not. It still stops short of routing between siblings (e.g. when to schedule vs update), so it is strong context rather than full alternative guidance.

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