hub_task_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that 'update' includes closing, reassigning, reprioritising, and editing text/deadline/cat, but it does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacements, side effects on related resources, required authentication, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with 11 parameters.

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 of 13 words, front-loaded with the action 'Update a task'. Every word contributes to purpose and capabilities, with no filler or repetition. It efficiently covers the core functionality without unnecessary detail.

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 a tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too minimal. It fails to mention the required 'by' parameter, whether updates are partial or full, what happens to unspecified fields, return values, or any side effects. Given the complexity, the description leaves substantial gaps in the information an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already describes several parameters (cat, tags, resources, depends_on). The description adds meaning to some parameters (e.g., 'close it' maps to status, 'reassign' maps to assignee, 'reprioritise' maps to importance) but does not significantly elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema. It groups capabilities but offers little additional detail for parameters like id, by, text, and deadline.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'task' and enumerates concrete actions: close it, reassign, reprioritise, edit text/deadline/cat. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hub_task_add, hub_task_get, and hub_task_list, which handle creation, retrieval, and listing respectively.

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 when a task needs modification, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like hub_task_add or hub_task_get, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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