pipedrive_update_task

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds beyond that: the milestone/due_date constraint, that is_done/is_milestone field names match the GET response, and the beta/projects nature. This enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and required conditions without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then includes essential constraints and context. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters), schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the key points: purpose, optional fields, a specific constraint, and the beta status. It doesn't discuss error handling or ownership prerequisites, but for an update operation this is sufficient. Slight gap: no explicit mention of how to obtain the task ID, but that's covered by sibling get/list tools.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description adds minimal new semantic detail: it reiterates that id is required (already in schema) and notes is_done/is_milestone are booleans matching GET field names, which is minor. This is a baseline score for high schema coverage; the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 starts with 'Update an existing task,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pipedrive_create_task and pipedrive_get_task by focusing on updating. The mention of specific fields like is_done/is_milestone and the milestone/due_date constraint adds precision about the operation's domain.

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 conveys when to use this tool (to modify an existing task) implicitly through the verb 'Update.' It provides usage constraints: only id is required, milestone tasks need a due_date, and it notes the API is in beta. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like create_task, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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