update_task_title

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Change task title' – it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, failure behavior, or whether the operation is limited to existing tasks. This is a minimal statement of intent, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 short with no filler; the single sentence is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than a complete but efficient summary, so it is not a perfect score for structure.

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 mutating tool with three required parameters and zero parameter documentation, this description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it reliably. The presence of an output schema partially covers return expectations, but the missing identifier semantics and usage guidance still leave a substantial gap.

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 must explain the three required parameters. It does not: 'Change task title' only hints that 'title' receives the new value, while zgid and task_id remain completely undefined, including how they relate to existing tasks or groups.

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 'Change task title.' states a specific action (change) and a clear resource (task title), and the operation is distinct from sibling tools like add_task, delete_task, and get_specific_task. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings or add any scope detail, so it stops short of a full 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, when a task must already exist, or what identifiers are required. The phrase 'Change task title' only implies the operation; it does not state usage context or exclusions.

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