Update task

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

No annotations convey behavioral traits, so the description must compensate. It only states the update action but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or whether changes are irreversible. The 'destructiveHint' annotation is false, but the description does not clarify this.

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 sentence without extraneous words. It is appropriately concise, though it could be structured with bullet points for clarity.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, how required fields are determined (only task_id is required per schema), or that task_id can be a title lookup. More context is needed for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; each parameter's description in the schema is minimal but present.

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 action ('Update a task') and specifies the aspects that can be updated ('status, fields, plan linkage'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like memory_create_task or memory_complete_todo beyond the verb 'update'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as memory_create_task for creating tasks or memory_complete_todo for completing todos. The mention of 'Same handler...' is an implementation detail, not usage advice.

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