Update task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal partial-update behavior ('only the provided fields are changed'), which is genuinely useful. However, it does not disclose mutation safety, permission requirements, reversibility, or response behavior for a mutation tool, leaving significant gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core action and the partial-update caveat are stated immediately, achieving maximum efficiency. This is genuinely concise rather than merely under-specified.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine valid status values, date formatting, or how partial updates interact with required fields. The description is too thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify the free-form 'status' string, the dueDate format, the relationship between assignedToId and assignedToName, or that only taskId is required. With 8 parameters and zero coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (task), and adds the useful nuance 'only the provided fields are changed,' which clarifies partial-update semantics. It is distinct from gambot_create_task but doesn't explicitly differentiate among the many sibling update_* tools, though the resource naming largely self-selects.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gambot_update_contact or gambot_get_task. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), no exclusions, and no note about what happens to unset fields beyond the single partial-update hint. Usage context is entirely left to inference.

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