focus_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 two behavioral traits: it's a PATCH (partial update, not full replacement) and changes apply immediately. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or idempotency, which would be expected for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 one concise sentence with exactly the essential information: product, operation, method, and immediacy. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It omits typical usage context such as how required parameters are determined, how workspace/org IDs default, what the response looks like, or any constraints. The minimal description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke this tool 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 only 12%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not explain any of the 17 parameters beyond what the schema provides via names/types. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, making parameter semantics mostly left to inference.

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 performs a partial update (PATCH) on a task, with the specific resource 'task' and the method 'PATCH'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like focus_create_task and focus_get_task, and the 'partially update' phrasing clarifies its scoped purpose.

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 implies use when partially modifying an existing task, and the PATCH method signals that only provided fields change. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., full update via PUT if available). Context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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