task_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so mutation and safety profile are covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is metadata-only, never triggers agent execution, and writes are isolated per project_path store. Missing only what happens to omitted fields on update.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the usage trigger comes first and the behavioral constraints follow. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, six parameters, and a nested result object, the description leaves some gaps: it does not clarify whether omitted fields are left unchanged, how assignTo relates to the sibling task_assign tool, or what the call returns. Adequate but not fully complete for a mutation tool of this shape.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the status enum and the nested result object is already documented in the schema. The description contributes only the project_path isolation note, which is meaningful but already echoed in the schema text, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('update') on task metadata and clearly scopes the resource as persistent work tracked across Codex sessions. The clause 'stores task metadata only; does not start or execute an agent' separates it from execution-oriented siblings like task_assign and task_retry, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

It supplies a usage context ('when tracking persistent work across Codex sessions') and one negative boundary (does not start or execute an agent). However, it never states when to prefer task_update over task_assign, task_complete, or task_cancel, which overlap meaningfully with the status/assignTo parameters.

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