taskops_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses status-transition constraints (done needs a commit, released requires a note, dropped needs a reason), the semantics of note being shown verbatim to the next worker, and the actor requirement for sub-agents. It stops short of stating permissions/reversibility, but the covered behavior is substantial.

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 dense sentence list, front-loaded with 'Change the CARD' and then compactly enumerating operations and constraints. Every clause adds information and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 an 18-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus the rich per-parameter schema descriptions cover the main workflows and special cases (milestone-only updates, actor identity, repo_path). It doesn't mention return values or advanced combinations, but the schema compensates and the core lifecycle is well explained.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly rephrases what the schema already says (e.g., status requirements, note requirements). It adds modest value by summarizing the lifecycle in one place, but it doesn't go beyond the schema to explain parameter meanings.

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 opens with a specific action ('Change the CARD') and enumerates concrete operations: close, hand in for review, hand back, drop, retitle, rewrite spec/criteria, reprioritise, declare a dependency. This clearly identifies the tool as the mutation entry point for cards and distinguishes it from taskops_comment, which is named as the channel for merely saying something.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: status=done requires a commit or no_code=true, review requires status=review, released/dropped require notes, and it explicitly directs casual communication to taskops_comment. It doesn't map out all sibling alternatives (e.g., taskops_review), but the lifecycle guidance gives clear when-to-use signals for the main operations.

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