Update task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'This operation writes to Asana,' which is useful but minimal. It does not disclose whether updates are partial or full-replacement, permission requirements, side effects on related data, or what the return value contains. For a mutation tool with complex fields, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately brief for a tool whose details are largely in the schema, though it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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 (14 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain return values, side effects, partial update behavior, or any prerequisites. This is a complex mutation tool that needs substantially more context for an agent to use it safely and 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?

Schema description coverage is only 29%, and the description does nothing to compensate. It simply says 'Update fields' without explaining any of the 14 parameters, their meaning, or how they interact. The description adds no value beyond the schema's sparse field descriptions, leaving most parameters opaque.

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 action ('Update fields on an Asana task') and identifies the resource (Asana task), and adds the important context that it writes to Asana, distinguishing it from read-only tools like get_task or list_tasks. It could be more specific about updating existing tasks versus creating, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 create_task, get_task, or search_tasks. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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