update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral trait—unspecified fields are left unchanged—but it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, idempotency, or what the update returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity leaves useful behavioral and routing details unstated.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not mention return values, error conditions, or how to choose between update_task and the status-specific sibling tools. The partial-update guidance is helpful, but an agent is left guessing about side effects and success signals.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates partially by explaining that supplied fields are update targets and omitted fields remain untouched. It still leaves title, notes, task_id, and tasklist_id without individual descriptions, though their names are largely self-explanatory.

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 clear action ('Update') and resource ('an existing task'), and it is distinguishable from create_task via the word 'existing'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish update_task from complete_task or reopen_task, which also perform task updates.

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 supply the fields you want to change' gives useful context for partial updates, implying the tool is for modifying existing tasks. It does not name alternatives such as complete_task or reopen_task for status-specific changes, nor state when not to use this tool.

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