Update a task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds context by naming the specific update operations (rename, reassign, mark done). However, it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, whether overwriting occurs, or any permission requirements, so it adds only minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core operations. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient for a tool with a simple high-level purpose.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a minimal overview. It omits details about partial updates, return values, error handling, or the relationship between project_id and project_name. The annotations cover safety, but the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent for a tool of this complexity.

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 56% (5 of 9 parameters have descriptions), and the tool description only maps to three parameters: 'renames' implies name, 'reassigns' implies assignee_ids, and 'marks it done' implies status. It fails to explain or imply meaning for billable, estimate_hours, project_id, and other fields, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 'Renames a task, reassigns it or marks it done' clearly identifies the tool's function as updating a task, using specific verbs and implying the resource. It differentiates from sibling CRUD tools (create_task, delete_task, get_task) by focusing on modification actions, though it omits other update capabilities like changing billable or estimate fields.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clockify_create_task or clockify_delete_task. There are no explicit use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and brief description.

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