update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates this is a state-changing operation on an existing task, but it does not mention constraints such as valid status transitions, side effects, or permissions. The schema already enumerates the allowed statuses, so the description adds only modest behavioral context beyond it.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core operation stated first and the usage context second. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter enum-based update operation, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. It covers what, when, and the allowed values. The only notable omissions are return value expectations and potential transition restrictions, but the simplicity of the tool lowers the completeness burden.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds a helpful mapping from real-world moments to status values ('work begins' implies in_progress, 'completes' implies done), but this is contextual rather than additional parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('status of an existing project task'), and clearly references the numeric ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task and list_tasks by focusing on mutating an existing task's state.

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?

'Use this when work begins, completes, or otherwise changes state' provides explicit context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names make the boundary reasonably clear.

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