update_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description's 'Change a task' is consistent with it. However, the description adds no behavioral context of its own: it does not say whether this is a partial patch (unspecified fields preserved) or whether omitted list fields are cleared, nor anything about auth or side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and then lists the mutation surface. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the most important information comes first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a 12-parameter mutation tool the description omits the one thing an agent most needs: whether fields not supplied are left untouched, plus the meaning of 'mark it completed' relative to completed_at.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 12 parameters and the HourlyRateMode union. The description only names four of the twelve capabilities and adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail (e.g. project disambiguation for a duplicate name) beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb (change) plus the resource (a task) and enumerates the kinds of mutations it performs: rename, move dates, set budget/rate, mark completed. That is far more specific than a tautology, but it never differentiates itself from siblings such as create_task, delete_task or get_task beyond the name itself.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Change a task'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over update_project/update_time_entry, no prerequisites, and no note about what happens if the task is not found or the caller lacks permission.

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