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 burden. It only says the tool updates task details; it does not disclose mutation side effects, authorization requirements, partial-update behavior, or any response characteristics. This is comparable to the 'update_drive' calibration, which scored 2 for a similar bare update description.

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 compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by a short parenthetical list of affected fields. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It omits the required id and client_slug context, does not clarify whether updates are partial or full replacement, and says nothing about the operation's outcome or error conditions.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a useful semantic grouping ('texto, data, responsável') that maps to text, complete_till, and responsible_user_id, the latter of which lacks a schema description. However, it does not compensate for all omitted parameter details.

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 'Atualiza os detalhes de uma tarefa existente (texto, data, responsável)' clearly states a specific verb and resource, and lists the main updateable fields. It implies this is for existing tasks as opposed to creating tasks, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling complete_task.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the phrase 'tarefa existente' suggests it should be used to modify an already-created task, and the listed fields suggest detail edits. There is no explicit guidance distinguishing it from create_task or complete_task, and no statement about when not to use it.

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