Update Project Task

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

Description discloses that assignments omitted from the list are removed by the API, which is destructive behavior not captured by annotations (destructiveHint=false). Also explains response is a task summary without content.

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?

Three-sentence paragraph covering key points: HTTP method, full update requirement, behavior of assignments, and response format. Could be slightly more structured but remains concise.

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 update semantics and response shape. Lacks explicit mention of error handling or authentication, but schema and annotations (openWorldHint) provide some context. Overall sufficient for a detailed update tool.

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 baseline 3. Description adds meaning for assignments (replacement behavior) and content (sent but not returned), which provides useful context beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it calls PUT to update a task, specifying that it's a full update requiring all fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aiproject_create_task (create) and aiproject_update_assignment_status (partial update).

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?

Explicitly says this is a full task update and that omitted assignments are removed, implying it should be used when replacing all task details. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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