weeek_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 does disclose genuinely important mutation semantics: assignees replace the list, other fields are PATCH-style. That is valuable beyond the schema (especially for assignees/tags). However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether omissions clear values, or error behavior on invalid ids.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the one non-obvious behavioral rule (replace vs merge). No filler.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the partial-update semantics are covered but several gaps remain: interplay with complete_task, behavior of undocumented fields, and what a successful update returns. Adequate but not sufficient for full confidence.

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 60%, with tags, taskId, dueDate, priority, assignees, and customFields already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the replace semantics for assignees but adds no meaning for the undocumented title, description, isCompleted, or boardColumnId parameters.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Update a task'), which is enough for an agent to know the operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like weeek_complete_task or weeek_create_task, which also mutate task state.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as weeek_complete_task (which may be the idiomatic path for isCompleted) or weeek_create_task. No prerequisites or context are stated.

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