Update task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is known. The description adds the genuinely useful semantic that status='active' means reopen and that 'deleted' is reachable through this single tool, which the enum list alone does not explain. However, there is tension with destructiveHint=false that is never resolved (soft-delete vs. real deletion), and no note about reversibility or the confirm prerequisite.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action and the status values front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though it borders on under-specification for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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 write tool with six parameters, 17% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never says which fields are editable, that deletion is permanent or recoverable, or that `confirm` is required when writing.

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 17% (just `confirm`), so the description must compensate. It does clarify the meaning of the one enum valueset (completed / active=reopen / deleted), which is real added meaning, but leaves taskId, dueDate, subject, description and the confirm flag entirely unexplained.

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 (edit/change) on a specific resource (task), and enumerates the status transitions including the 'active (reopen)' semantics. It is distinguishable from create_task and list_tasks, though it does not name those siblings to differentiate scope explicitly.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions. Critically, it does not mention the `confirm` gate that the schema says must be set before writes are approved, so an agent gets no workflow guidance beyond the bare action.

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