update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates mutation but does not mention success/failure responses, auth requirements, side effects, rate limits, or return values. The absence of an output schema amplifies this gap.

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 with a clear bullet list and a final directive. It earns its space without verbosity. A slight improvement could integrate the use cases more tightly with the parameter list.

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 22 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers common use cases but omits return value details, error handling, and prerequisites (e.g., task must exist). The agent may need to infer behavior from similar tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists common update scenarios but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The guideline 'Only provide the fields you want to change' is helpful but not parameter-specific.

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 it updates an existing task in Propstack and enumerates specific use cases (mark done, reschedule, add notes, etc.), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and well-distinguished from creation or deletion tools.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool (e.g., mark done, reschedule, add notes) and advises to only provide fields to change. However, it does not mention when not to use it or direct to alternative tools like create_task for new tasks.

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