update_task_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful side effect: re-validation of dependency references and cycle-checks after update. However, it does not mention permissions, potential error outcomes (e.g., if validation fails), reversibility, or any destructive effects, leaving material behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the action and object, then adds the re-validation behavior. Every clause earns its place; zero waste.

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 has 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It explains the core purpose and validation side-effect but does not describe return values, failure behavior, or how the update interacts with the graph state. The validation mention hints at consequences, but many operational details are missing.

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 very low (14%), with only nodeId having a schema description. The description compensates by naming phase, status, and validation_command, plus a vague 'properties' umbrella, but 14 parameters remain largely undocumented in both schema and description. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the meaning and expected format of fields like tags, depends_on, or acceptance_criteria.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing task node'), and clearly lists the modifiable scopes: properties, phase, status, or validation command. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_task_node (creation) and reset_task_node (reset), especially with the 'existing' qualifier and mention of re-validation after 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?

The description implies the tool is for modifying an already-created task node, with the phrase 'existing task node' clarifying when to use it vs. creation tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would use this over add or reset variants.

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