update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that fields can be changed, but does not clarify partial-update semantics, null-field behavior, permissions, side effects, or response format.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it sacrifices some useful detail for brevity.

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 mutable tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits update semantics, how nulls are interpreted, and any guidance on required identifiers, leaving the agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description paraphrases several field names (title, description, assignee, dates, priority) but adds no extra meaning such as date formats, priority bounds, or null behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change'), identifies the resource ('a task'), and lists the affected fields (title, description, assignee, dates, priority). This clearly differentiates it from update_subtask, update_project, update_comment, and update_costs.

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 given about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The description simply restates the action and does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools.

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