update_task

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

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on description. The description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authorization requirements, side effects (e.g., does it update partial fields?), or whether it returns the updated object.

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?

Under-specification rather than conciseness. The single-word phrase 'Update task' is too minimal to be useful. Valuable space is wasted that could have been used to describe behavior or provide examples.

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?

With 13 parameters, no output schema, and no description of return values or error conditions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not indicate whether the update is partial or full, or what the response contains.

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 high (85%), but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., if status changes affect other fields) or any domain-specific constraints.

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?

Description 'タスクを更新します' is a tautology, merely restating the tool name 'update_task'. It does not specify what can be updated (e.g., fields, status, assignees), nor distinguish the tool from sibling tools like create_task or delete_task.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_task, archive_all_inbox, or update_task_comment. The description provides no context for appropriate invocation.

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