Update Task Metadata

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds details about in-place editing, vault context dependency, and failure conditions, enhancing transparency beyond 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, uses only six sentences with no redundancy, each sentence adding critical information (purpose, identification, usage, idempotency, failure, vault).

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?

Covers key behaviors (in-place, idempotent, failure condition, vault context) and uses the output schema for return values; minor gap on date format details but schema provides pattern definitions.

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 coverage, the description compensates by explaining identification via sourceFile+lineNumber and vaultPath behavior, and groups optional fields as 'dates, priority, or recurrence', adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'task metadata' (dates, priority, recurrence), distinguishing from sibling tools like tasks.toggle or tasks.create by explicitly noting it does not touch the task body text.

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 advises to pass only fields to change and notes failure if the line is not a task, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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