Update Task Metadata

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and non-destructive; description adds that it fails if not a task, operates in place, and vault behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise paragraphs with clear front-loading of the main action and constraints, followed by vault context. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (8 params, idempotent, vault dependency), the description covers key aspects: identification, partial updates, idempotency, failure case, and vault selection. Missing details like error handling for invalid dates are covered by schema, and output schema exists for return values.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by naming the fields and explaining sourceFile+lineNumber as identifier, vaultPath override, and partial updates. However, it doesn't explain date formats or constraints beyond what is in schema patterns.

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 clearly states the tool updates task metadata (dates, priority, recurrence) without affecting body text, using sourceFile and lineNumber. It is distinct from sibling tools like tasks.toggle or tasks.create.

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 explains how to identify the target (sourceFile + lineNumber), to pass only changed fields, idempotency, and vault selection. It implicitly guides when to use this tool over alternatives by focusing on metadata updates, though it could explicitly contrast with tasks.toggle.

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