tasks_tasks_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds the partial-update behavior ('only supplied fields change'), which goes beyond the annotations and is valuable for understanding how the tool mutates data.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core function and partial-update behavior, the second provides a common usage example. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and is extremely compact.

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 simple update tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and gives a usage scenario. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but the required parameters are already in the schema, and the description is adequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds meaning by giving a concrete example (setting status to 'completed'), which helps an agent understand how to use the status parameter beyond its schema description. It also reinforces that only supplied fields change, clarifying parameter behavior.

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 a task and specifies the partial-update semantics ('only supplied fields change'). It distinguishes this from the sibling insert, delete, list, and get tools by focusing on the update operation and the common completion use case.

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 a common use case ('complete a task by setting status to completed') which implicitly indicates when to use this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like tasks_tasks_move, but the name and the given scenario are sufficient for typical usage guidance.

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