update_task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the default return is a lean confirmation (id, status_id, assignee, updated_at) and static fields are not echoed, which is important since there is no output schema. It does not, however, elaborate on what the destructive hint entails (which fields can be cleared/lost).

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the return-behavior caveat following. No filler, though the em-dash clause could be slightly trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, describing the return value is essential and the description does exactly that, including the full=true escape hatch. For a 12-param mutation tool the coverage is adequate; it could say more about what fields are actually mutable or the destructive implications, but the critical return-shape gap is filled.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 12 parameters including the full flag and field-clearing semantics. The description reinforces the full vs lean return behavior but adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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 specific verb+resource ('Update task fields'), which is clear and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like create_task or move_task, though the verb+resource is enough for an agent to route correctly.

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 implied by the mutation verb, and it does route to an alternative ('call get_task') for the full-field case. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like move_task, assign_task, or release_task, which are also task mutations.

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