update_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the ability to add, remove, or replace tasks but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or safety information (e.g., whether changes are reversible). The description is too brief to fully inform an agent about behavior.

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 two sentences with no redundancy or extraneous detail. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it quick to parse.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not clarify behavior when multiple parameters are provided (e.g., add and replace together) or explain how the current tasks list is accessed. However, for a simple tool, it provides minimally sufficient information.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., summarizing the operations). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides adequate parameter info.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'current tasks list', and lists specific operations (add, remove, replace). It is specific and understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like track_progress or update_active_context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_progress_entry). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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