update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Partial update' discloses that unspecified fields remain unchanged, and 'one or more' indicates multi-field updates are allowed. But it does not mention side effects, error behavior for invalid taskId, permissions, or what the response contains, leaving notable gaps.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage constraint in the second sentence is immediately actionable.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential partial-update contract but omits details like return value, behavior when taskId does not exist, and whether status must reference an existing column. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explicitly requiring at least one update field, which is not encoded as a formal schema constraint and is important for correct invocation. It also clarifies that the optional fields are individually updatable.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('task'), and scope ('one or more task fields'), with 'partial update' clarifying PATCH-like semantics. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_task or delete_task, but the update semantics are clear enough to avoid confusion.

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 phrase 'Provide at least one update field' gives a concrete precondition for invoking the tool. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_task/delete_task or state that the task must already exist, so usage context is mostly implied rather than fully specified.

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