Update Task(s)

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

With no annotations, the description covers behavioral traits: batch updates are non-atomic with failed checks, auto-mapping of description based on task type, and the side effect of task becoming CHECKLIST when items provided. It lacks auth or rate limit info but is adequate for a task update 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 well-structured with clear sections (WHEN TO USE, REQUIRED, OPTIONAL, INPUT FORMAT, BATCH BEHAVIOR) and bullet points. Slightly verbose but front-loads essential info.

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?

Covers most aspects for a complex batch update tool: input format, batch behavior, required/optional fields, and key behaviors. Missing details on error handling beyond failed count, batch size limits, and return structure (no output schema). Could add what the response contains.

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%, but the description adds bilingual labels, practical notes (auto-mapping of description, date format examples, priority values), and explains conditional behavior like 'items' making task a checklist. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 tool updates one or more existing tasks and supports batch updates. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like complete_task by including batch behavior.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section lists specific modification scenarios (title, description, dates, priority, sub-tasks) and required parameters. It also explains batch non-atomicity. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like complete_task, missing a bit of guidance for selection.

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