update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it patches existing tasks but does not clarify what happens to unset fields (e.g., are nulls applied or ignored), idempotency, authorization requirements, or side effects like notifications. This is a significant gap 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose in a clear subject-verb-object structure.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical context for a 9-parameter mutation tool with 1 required parameter. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter semantics, making it insufficient for a complex operation.

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 11% (issue_id is described as 'Task UUID'). The tool description does not compensate—it merely references 'fields' generically. Parameter names like priority, state_id, label_ids are self-explanatory but not specified, and there is no guidance on how to clear values or relationships.

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 'Patch' and resource 'existing task', clearly conveying a partial-update operation. It distinguishes itself from create_task by focusing on existing tasks and from get_task by indicating modification. The scope 'any combination of fields' clarifies that it supports partial updates.

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 implies usage for updating existing tasks, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like change_status, which also modifies task state, or provide when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions under which this tool should be preferred.

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