update_task

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states that a task is updated; it does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether a partial update is allowed, what happens if the task does not exist, or the response shape. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. The parenthetical list is slightly redundant with the schema but does not bloat the description.

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?

The description is minimally viable for a simple update tool: it tells the agent what resource to act on and which fields can change, and the schema covers parameter syntax. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits partial-update semantics and return value, leaving the agent to guess behavior beyond the call.

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 already documents all six parameters. The parenthetical in the description merely repeats the property names without adding semantics like format, enum choices, or the meaning of null dueDate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing task'), and lists the mutable fields, which clearly separates it from create_task/get_task/list_tasks. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the meaning 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?

No when-to-use vs alternatives is provided; there is no mention of choosing update_task over create_task for new tasks or get_task for reads. The adjective 'existing' is the only implicit guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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