update_task

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

The description adds two valuable behaviors beyond the annotations: it explicitly states that only supplied fields are modified, and it highlights the need for explicit clear flags to avoid accidental data loss. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructive intent, but the description enriches the safety model.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and packs the clear-flag warning into a compact clause. There is no fluff or redundancy. Given the tool's complexity, the extreme brevity is a slight drawback, but the structure is efficient.

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 19-parameter partial-update tool with zero parameter descriptions, one sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain how clear flags relate to the null-default fields, what constitutes an 'allowed task', or which fields are mutually exclusive. The output schema covers return values, so that gap is acceptable, but key invocation details are missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, but it only mentions clear flags generically. It does not explain the meaning or valid values of the 19 parameters, nor the interaction between null-default fields and clear_* flags. Parameter names are self-evident, but the description adds minimal semantic value.

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 a task and specifies partial-update semantics ('only supplied fields'). It distinguishes this from specialized task tools like set_task_state or set_task_tags by describing a general field-update operation, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_task_state, set_task_tags, or move_task_to_stage. The only usage hint is the warning about clear flags preventing accidental erasure, which addresses how to update rather than when to choose this tool.

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