update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses partial-update semantics (只改传入的部分), but does not cover permissions, reversibility, side effects, or return behavior for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences with no wasted wording and is front-loaded with the updatable fields followed by the partial-update behavior. It is tersely structured rather than verbose, though it may be too minimal for the tool's complexity.

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 seven parameters, a nested object, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is not complete enough. It omits actor semantics, required task_id context, custom-field merge behavior, and any auth or output expectations.

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 29%, so the description must compensate. It names five of seven parameters (title, description, tags, custom fields, priority) but omits actor and task_id, and adds no format or merge details beyond the field names.

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 states a specific verb+resource (更新任务) and lists the updatable fields: title, description, tags, custom fields, and priority. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as update_progress or move_task, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. It states that only passed parts are changed, but that is behavioral context rather than selection guidance.

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