manus_task_update

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the surface-level actions without discussing side effects (e.g., impact on collaborators from visibility changes, whether renaming affects URLs or links, or if any fields are irreversible). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly brief given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, multiple actions). It front-loads the core purpose but omits necessary details, making it less effective than if slightly expanded.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers only the basic actions. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral impacts, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for the agent to fill.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the description only names the fields (title, share_visibility, enable_visible_in_task_list) without explaining their meaning, constraints, or expected formats. The agent lacks crucial context for correct parameter usage.

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 the tool's primary actions: rename a task or change share visibility/task-list visibility. It identifies the resource (task) and the specific modifiable aspects. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like manus_task_create or manus_task_delete, but the purpose is still clear.

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 (e.g., when to update vs. create or delete a task). No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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