update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates tasks, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), or response format. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Actualiza una tarea existente') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's overly terse for a mutation tool with no annotations, potentially under-specifying rather than being optimally concise, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, usage context, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to reliably invoke the tool beyond basic parameter input.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 5 parameters (id, title, detail, priority, isDone) with types, enums for priority, and required fields. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating 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 'Actualiza una tarea existente' (Updates an existing task) clearly states the verb ('actualiza') and resource ('tarea'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'toggle_task' (which also modifies tasks) or specify what aspects can be updated beyond the general action, leaving some ambiguity in differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new tasks), or comparisons to siblings like 'toggle_task' (for toggling completion) or 'create_task' (for new tasks), leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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