edit_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses PATCH-style partial-update behavior and the empty-string sentinel for detaching a sprint. It says nothing about permissions, whether label/blocker replacement is destructive, or what the call returns, which leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most consequential behaviors. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Six parameters, no output schema and no annotations mean the description should do more; it omits return value, error behavior on unknown ids, and whether replacement of labels or blockers is reversible. The high schema coverage covers field-level meaning, so it is adequate but not 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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: that omitted fields are untouched and that sprint='' is the detach sentinel. It does not clarify the id aliasing or the replace-all nature of blocked_by, but it improves on the schema for the least obvious parameter.

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?

"Change task metadata" gives a specific verb plus resource, and "metadata" implicitly excludes status changes, which sibling tools like change_task_status, assign_task, and rank_task handle. However, no sibling is named, and the block/unblock siblings overlap conceptually with the blocked_by parameter, so the boundary requires inference.

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?

"Only the fields given are changed" establishes partial-update semantics and "sprint='' detaches" gives one concrete usage recipe, so usage is implied. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over block_task/unblock_task or change_task_status, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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