update_current_task

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 this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing content not mentioned, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Update notes/content of the task') and includes a clarifying parenthetical ('current task only'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word serves a clear purpose in conveying the tool's function and scope.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, reversibility), doesn't explain the return value or potential errors, and offers minimal guidance on usage compared to siblings. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'body' parameter clearly documented as 'New body content for the task.' The description doesn't add any meaningful semantics beyond this, such as formatting examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Update notes/content') and target resource ('the task you're currently focused on'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'extend_current_task' or 'complete_current_task', which likely also modify the current task in different ways.

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 context by specifying 'current task only,' which suggests this tool is for modifying an existing focused task rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'extend_current_task' or 'complete_current_task,' leaving some ambiguity about the specific scenarios for each tool.

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