update_task

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

The description only states 'Update an existing task' and 'Returns updated task details.' No annotations exist to carry behavioral context, so the description must disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It fails to do so, offering minimal transparency.

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 brief (three sentences plus a parameter line) and front-loaded with purpose. It includes a structured 'Parameters:' and 'Returns:' section, making it easy to scan. No excess text.

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 moderate complexity (nested request object) and no annotations, the description should clarify that the task must exist, mention which fields are updatable, and describe the return format. It only gives a vague 'Updated task details' and omits error conditions or prerequisites.

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?

The description mentions 'request: UpdateTaskRequest with task_id and fields to update,' adding context beyond the schema name. However, the schema already describes fields individually. Since there is only one parameter and the description adds little new detail, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing task,' explicitly naming the verb (update) and resource (task). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, and get_task, providing unambiguous 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_task for new tasks, delete_task for removal). No preconditions or usage context are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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