update_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: the agenda becomes inactive when all non-optional tasks are completed. It also states the return type. However, it omits error behavior or edge cases, which would enhance 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 concise and well-structured: purpose, side-effect, args, and returns in a clean format. Every sentence contributes, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what it does, side-effects, parameter meaning, and return shape. Missing details like error handling are minor given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's parameter explanations add value, especially clarifying that 'is_completed' means 'True if the task is finished'. However, 'task_id' explanation is minimal, and the semantics largely duplicate what the schema's type and name already imply.

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 action ('Update a task's completion status') with a specific verb and resource. It also explains an important side-effect on the agenda, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on agendas and memory.

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 purpose is obvious but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The side-effect note implies a condition, but no clear context or alternative tool references are provided.

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