update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool works for all task types and explains the workflowId resolution behavior. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, or error scenarios. Still, the provided details are sufficient for an agent to understand core behavior.

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 long, with no extraneous information. Key points (updateable fields, task types, workflowId behavior, comparison to sibling) are presented succinctly and in a logical order.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: when to use, what fields can be updated, and the special behavior of workflowId. It does not describe the return value, but given no output schema requirement, this is acceptable. One could argue for a 5, but minor gaps (e.g., confirmation of update) prevent a perfect score.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the effect of omitting 'workflowId' and confirming that 'description' can be cleared with an empty string (though the schema already mentions this). This extra guidance justifies a score of 4.

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 specifies the verb 'Update' and the resources 'task title, description, or status' and notes it works for all task types. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'update_task_status' by stating when to use this tool instead.

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?

Explicitly advises to use this tool over 'update_task_status' when also setting a title or description. Also explains the behavior of omitting 'workflowId' to update by task ID regardless of workflow, providing clear context on when to omit it.

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