jpi_update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to fields not mentioned (partial vs. full updates), whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits/error conditions. This leaves significant gaps 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with 9 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, partial update behavior, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of structured support, more context is needed to make this tool actionable for an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself (e.g., jobGuid, taskGuid, TaskStatus with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the comprehensive schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('a task within a job'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling update tools (like jpi_update_component_task or jpi_update_tasks_batch), which would require more specificity about what makes task updates unique.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling update tools (e.g., jpi_update_tasks_batch for batch operations, jpi_update_component_task for component-related tasks), there's no indication of when this single-task update is preferred, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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