hb_state_task_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The key question for an update tool — whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared — is not answered, nor is there any mention of permissions, reversibility, 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 short sentence with the action and affected fields front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded.

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 five-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. Partial-update semantics, the effect of each enum transition (open/in_progress/done), and the role of the filter-like fields are all unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists three of the five fields but says nothing that adds meaning beyond the schema, and it ignores agent_id, which the schema oddly labels 'Optional agent filter' for an update operation.

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 and resource ('Update a task') and names the three mutable fields, so the agent knows it is a mutation of an existing task. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like hb_state_task_create or hb_state_task_list, but the 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus hb_state_task_create or hb_state_task_list, nor any stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Update'.

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