tasks_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing task' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether it's idempotent, what permissions are required, or how conflicts are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action. While this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, from a pure conciseness perspective, it's optimal.

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 (mutation tool with nested parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update behavior, parameter usage, return values, or error handling. For a tool that modifies data with multiple configuration options, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.

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%, meaning none of the parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. With 2 required parameters (taskId and properties) and nested objects with multiple fields, the description provides no semantic information about what these parameters mean or how to use them.

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 'Update an existing task' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (task), but it's vague about what specifically gets updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tasks_batch_update' or 'tasks_update' (if there were multiple task update tools), though the sibling list shows only one 'tasks_update' tool. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope or 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. The sibling list includes 'tasks_batch_update' and 'tasks_create', but the description doesn't mention when to prefer single-task update over batch operations or when to update versus create. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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