update_task

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that only specified fields are changed, distinguishes replace vs append for description, and discloses that setting parent_task_id moves the task to the parent's list. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but the provided context is meaningful and does not contradict the annotations (openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 appropriately structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a documented parameter list. Every line adds value, and the length is justified by the tool's 10 parameters. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, output schema present), the description fully covers all parameters and key behaviors. It explains valid values, side effects, and relationships between parameters. The presence of an output schema means return value details are not required, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly, providing format examples for task_id, value mappings for priority, and clarifying the behavior of description vs append_description, assignee_add/remove, and parent_task_id. This goes far beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 'Update fields on a task. Only specified fields are changed.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the partial-update semantics distinguish it from related tools like create_task, delete_task, and bulk_update_tasks. The explicit list of updatable fields further clarifies scope.

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?

The description implies the tool is for single-task updates but does not explicitly mention alternatives like bulk_update_tasks or ensure_task_fields, nor does it state when not to use this tool. It does provide guidance on using append_description instead of description for appending, and notes the reparenting behavior, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs sibling tools.

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