sprrint_tasks_update

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the partial-update behavior: unspecified fields remain unchanged. However, it does not address permissions, side effects, failure modes, or what happens when the provided key does not exist. It adds some meaningful behavior but is not fully 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most important usage rule. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Despite the simple tool, there are 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description leaves unclear how to clear optional fields, what the 'key' parameter refers to semantically, and what the tool returns after update. For an update tool with this many nullable fields, the context provided is too thin.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The generic partial-update statement helps, but it fails to explain key identity semantics or the critical ambiguity around null values—whether passing null clears a field or leaves it unchanged. With 10 optional fields and no field-specific descriptions, this is a noticeable gap.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Update a task.' It also conveys the partial-update semantics, which distinguishes this from tasks_create, tasks_move, and other sibling task tools. An agent can immediately tell what this tool is for.

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 instruction 'Pass only the fields that should change' provides clear usage guidance for how to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like sprrint_tasks_create or sprrint_tasks_move, nor does it give exclusions or edge-case guidance. The intended context is implied rather than explicit.

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