update_task

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the permission model (must be explicitly requested), the return shape ('objet résultant au format unifié'), and the clear_due removal semantics for the due field. That is real behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 critical guardrail is front-loaded in caps before any mechanics, and every sentence carries information. Slightly dense with parenthetical parameter detail in the final sentence, but 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained (the 'format unifié' note is a bonus). For a 6-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is nearly complete; the only missing piece is the null/undefined field semantics for partial updates.

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%, so the description carries the load and does so for most parameters: due format 'AAAA-MM-JJ', clear_due as the removal switch, list_name as the move target, plus title and notes. It omits what passing null/omitting a field does (leave unchanged vs overwrite) and does not describe id, which is the one real 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 ('Modifie une tâche') and enumerates the mutable fields (titre, notes, échéance, liste), which clearly separates it from siblings like add_task, update_event and set_status. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('uniquement sur demande explicite de Denis') and explicit when-not ('ne jamais appeler de sa propre initiative, ni pour « aider », ni pour corriger'). This is unusually strong routing guidance, though it does not name a sibling alternative for the same resource.

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