update_task

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: partial updates only, 412 failure when the etag is stale, automatic etag fetching when omitted, and the concurrency caveat that external earlier changes won't be detected. It also clarifies that empty strings clear fields and that the operation returns a confirmation with the updated UID. This is rich, useful behavioral context.

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 efficiently organized: a two-sentence overview, an optimistic-locking clarification, then a tidy Args list, followed by the return value. Nothing is redundant, and the most important caveat (etag/412) appears near the front.

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 an 11-parameter update tool with an empty schema and no enums, this description is complete: it covers required parameters, optional parameters, formats, allowed values, clearing behavior, concurrency behavior, and the return value. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it succeeds. Every parameter is explained with formats, allowed values, ranges, and clearing semantics: ISO 8601 for dates, the four status values, priority scale 0-9, percent range 0-100, comma-separated categories, and etag behavior. This fully compensates for the bare input schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing task.' It clearly distinguishes updating from creating by emphasizing 'existing task' and 'Only provided fields are changed,' so an agent knows it is a partial-update operation rather than creation or deletion.

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?

It gives clear context: use this to update an existing task, only provided fields are changed, and UIDs come from get_tasks. It also explains when optimistic locking applies and what happens if the etag is omitted. It does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives like complete_task or create_task, but the intended usage is clear enough without exclusions.

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