Update task

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation is expected. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed') and the special null-clearing behavior for due and notes. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and target fields. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains null behavior and partial updates. No redundancy or fluff.

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 6-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, editable fields, null-clearing semantics, and partial-update behavior. It does not mention return values, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical. It could be more complete with explicit usage exclusions, but given the richness of the schema, it is largely sufficient.

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 descriptions cover about half the parameters (per context), and the description enhances semantics by explaining null handling for due and notes. It also clarifies that omitted fields remain unchanged, which adds meaning beyond the schema's per-field descriptions. The description compensates for the moderate schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Change' with a clear resource ('a task') and enumerates the editable fields (title, notes, due date, status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, complete_task, and move_task, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description implies usage for modifying task fields but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like complete_task, reopen_task, or move_task. The 'Only the fields you pass are changed' line provides partial-update guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison.

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