Modify fields like title, priority, deadline, or description on an existing task. Use it to correct or reprioritize tasks already stored in your board.
Update one or more fields of an existing task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| taskId | Yes | ||
| deadline | No | ISO date string, or empty to clear | |
| priority | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that updates are partial ('one or more fields'), but says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether changes are reversible, or that passing an empty deadline clears it (that detail lives only in the schema).
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. It is under-specified rather than over-long, so the brevity costs it nothing structurally but leaves no room for the missing detail.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sparse schema coverage, this description is not sufficient. It omits permissions, partial-update semantics on omitted fields, the clear-value behavior, and how it relates to update_subtask/move_task.
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 only 20% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never names the updatable fields (title, deadline, priority, description) nor explains that deadline accepts an empty string to clear the value.
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?
States a specific verb (update) and resource (existing task) and adds partial-update scope with 'one or more fields'. However it does nothing to distinguish itself from the close siblings update_subtask and move_task, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer update_task over move_task or update_subtask, and no prerequisites. The agent is left to infer everything from the name and the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.