Update a task using its issue and task identifiers, with partial changes for completed status, expiration date, description, or assigned user.
Update a task. Update a task using its unique identifier.
This endpoint supports partial updates, so you only need to include the fields you want to change.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds useful partial-update semantics: only include fields you want to change. It stops short of explaining what 'destructive' affects or any auth/rate-limit behavior, so moderate credit.
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?
Brief and mostly front-loaded, but the first sentence 'Update a task.' redundantly repeats the second. One sentence could be removed without losing meaning.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema and low top-level schema coverage, the description omits usage guidance, parameter names, and destruction/auth behavior. Annotations help cover safety, but the definition remains incomplete for correct invocation.
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?
Top-level schema coverage is 0%; neither path nor body has a description in the schema. The description says 'unique identifier' and 'fields you want to change' but never names issueId, taskId, or any body fields, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: update a task by unique identifier, and notes partial-update support. It separates from get/post/delete siblings by verb, but does not name alternatives, so it falls short of top-tier sibling differentiation.
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?
Provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance. 'Supports partial updates' is behavioral context, not guidance on choosing this tool over post_issue_task or get_issue_task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.