b24_tasks_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'updates fields' and does not mention write permissions, personal webhook requirements, partial-update semantics, reversibility, or response behavior. The schema's personal_webhook description hints at read-only risk, but the main description adds no 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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. However, it is so sparse that it sacrifices useful guidance for brevity.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested object parameters, the description is too thin. It omits essentials like when to use, prerequisites, webhook behavior, and what kind of field updates are accepted. An agent would likely need to inspect schema details and sibling behavior to call this safely.

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 only 50%, and the description adds little parameter meaning beyond 'existing task' suggesting the id. It does not clarify the shape of 'fields', supported field names, or how webhook parameters affect the call. The schema documents 'Campos a actualizar' but the description should compensate for the low coverage, and it does not.

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 operation ('Actualiza campos') and the resource ('una tarea existente'), making it distinct from siblings like b24_tasks_create, b24_tasks_get, b24_tasks_list, and b24_tasks_complete. An agent can tell this tool is for modifying fields on an already-created task.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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