update_task

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

With no annotations, the description adds key behavioral info (cannot modify completed tasks) but is incomplete. It does not mention authentication, side effects, or that other schema fields (e.g., dependencies) are actually updatable, potentially misleading the agent.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. However, it could be structured to list all updatable fields or reference the schema for completeness.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of 14 sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return value, error handling (e.g., for completed tasks), and the full scope of updatable fields.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions in the schema are complete. The tool description adds minimal value, only mentioning three fields (name, description, notes) while the schema includes many more, such as dependencies and relatedFiles.

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 tool updates task content, listing specific fields (name, description, notes) and includes a constraint (cannot modify completed tasks). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'complete_task' or 'update_task_files'.

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 provides implicit usage context (when to update tasks) and a when-not condition (completed tasks). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_task_files' or 'complete_task'.

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