hub_task_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists editable fields and the status=done action, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, overwrite semantics, or behavior for partial updates. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with 'Update a task', and directly lists supported actions. 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?

With 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain the 'by' parameter, how multiple field updates combine, or the meaning of resources and depends_on. The agent is left without critical context for correct invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 30%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for six parameters (status, assignee, importance, text, deadline, cat) but omits the required 'by' parameter and does not explain the id format or resources/depends_on semantics. The compensation is partial.

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 states 'Update a task' and enumerates specific actions: close (status=done), reassign, reprioritise, edit text/deadline/cat. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings like hub_task_add (create) and hub_task_list (list).

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 modifying existing tasks via 'Update a task', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. The contrast with hub_task_add is implicit but not articulated, forcing the agent to infer.

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