workiva_update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or any state constraints for tasks. The tool is a mutation, but the description only says 'via JSON Patch' without further elaboration.

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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clear args list. There is no redundant information, and the key details are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description is sufficient for basic invocation (knows the parameters and purpose), and the output schema covers return values. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are critical for an update tool with many sibling task actions. The omission of when-to-use guidance reduces completeness.

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 0%, but the description compensates minimally by explaining task_id as 'The task UUID' and patches as 'JSON Patch array.' This adds meaning beyond schema property names, but it does not explain the structure of JSON Patch or what fields are commonly patched, leaving partial ambiguity.

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's function: 'Update a task via JSON Patch.' It identifies a specific verb ('update') and resource ('task'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like creation, deletion, submission, approval, rejection, and reassignment by specifying the JSON Patch method.

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 relative to other task actions such as submit, approve, reject, or reassign. The description does not provide context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and the JSON Patch mention.

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