Edit task / achievement (admin)

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

Annotations already indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), but description adds crucial context: 'MUTATES live game config — confirm and prefer staging', and mentions diff-semantics on rewards. This adds value 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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose and critical warnings. No unnecessary words, earns its space.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main use case, addresses the tricky reward scenario, and warns about production effects. Lacks details on return values and some parameter semantics, but sufficient for an admin editing tool with many siblings.

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 13%, so description must compensate. It lists editable fields (name, description, rewardClaim, recurrence, businessLogic) and explains identification by slug/name for the required 'task' parameter. However, it does not explain other parameters like projectId, fields, or recurring object structure, leaving gaps.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Update' and specifies fields: name, description, rewardClaim, recurrence, businessLogic. Also identifies the resource as an existing single task by slug/name. Distinguishes from create siblings and addresses a specific limitation with rewards.

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?

Explicitly tells when to delete and recreate instead of edit for rewards: 'To CHANGE REWARDS, delete and recreate the task'. Also advises confirming live changes and preferring staging, providing clear guidance on usage context.

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