update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (the schema's single required field implies partial update, but this is never stated), what happens if task_id is invalid, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial 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 purpose line is front-loaded and the per-argument list is efficient and scannable. The repeated 'New X for the task' phrasing on title/description is slightly redundant but costs little.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the return value and about partial-update semantics for a 7-parameter mutation tool. The parameter documentation is solid, but the behavioral envelope an agent must know to call it safely is left implicit.

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 0%, but the description compensates well: it supplies the enumerated values for priority (low, medium, high, urgent) and status (pending, in_progress, completed, cancelled) and the YYYY-MM-DD date format and comma-separated tag format, none of which appear in the bare schema. It falls short of explaining whether tags replace or append to existing tags.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing task'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling 'complete_task' (which also changes status), leaving that routing decision to the caller.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus its siblings, and no mention that 'complete_task' is the dedicated path for finishing a task or that this tool should be used for partial edits. The reader must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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