update_task

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses partial update semantics (non-None fields forwarded, omitted fields preserved), that task_type_id is an integer from list_task_types, and importantly that the status field is silently ignored for completion. Does not cover permissions or rate limits, but is otherwise transparent.

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?

Every sentence adds value. Clear structure: update action, partial update rule, specific parameter notes, and a warning. No redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 6 parameters, output schema exists, and no annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects and provides warnings. Lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., task existence) but is otherwise complete for the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: explains task_type_id source, description supports Markdown, and clarifies partial update behavior. Does not explain each parameter individually but provides sufficient context beyond the schema.

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 it updates an existing task via partial POST to a specific endpoint. It distinguishes itself from other tools like create_task and get_task by explicitly focusing on update, and contrasts with delete task mentioned for completion.

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 states when to use (update existing task) and when not to (marking task complete is not supported, advises delete or UI instead). Also provides guidance on task_type_id from list_task_types and notes that description accepts Markdown.

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