tasks_update

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

With no annotations provided to describe safety or behavior, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It does not disclose if the operation is idempotent, requires specific authentication (though likely implicit), or if there are rate limits or side effects (e.g., triggers, notifications). A mutation tool updating tasks needs more behavioral disclosure.

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 very short with only 9 words. While brief, it front-loads the action. However, it sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity, leaving out critical details about the patch_json format and parameter roles. It feels rushed rather than concise.

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?

Despite having no annotations and low schema coverage, the description fails to explain what the return value contains (though output schema exists). It also repeats patch_json fields vaguely. For a mutation tool in a suite with many similar tools, this under-specifies, making it hard for the agent to use correctly.

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 'patch_json: JSON object with title/description/status/dates', but the input schema does not specify any allowed properties for patch_json (0% schema description coverage). The description only covers part of patch_json's structure and omits group_id semantics. Given the low schema coverage, the description does not compensate enough.

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 states 'Update task fields' which clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (task). However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'tasks_batch_update' or 'tasks_complete'. The description could be misinterpreted without considering the tool name itself, but it is functional.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_batch_update' or 'tasks_cancel'. There is no mention of prerequisites, whether partial updates are allowed, or error handling. The agent receives no context to make an informed selection decision.

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