pylon_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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the rate limit (60 requests per minute), which adds some context, but it does not disclose required permissions, side effects, partial update behavior, or error handling for a mutating operation. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies data.

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 sentences, minimal words, and directly front-loaded with the purpose. The rate limit is a useful extra detail. No filler or repetition, making it appropriately concise.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the tool is a complex mutation with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description lacks usage context, behavioral details, and any mention of return values or effects beyond 'update'. The rate limit adds a little, but the overall context is under-specified.

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 provides descriptions for all 9 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so it meets the baseline of 3 without needing 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('task'), and the system ('Pylon'), making it specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pylon_create_task and pylon_delete_task by using 'existing' to imply modification.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used to modify existing tasks rather than create or delete them, and no alternative tools are referenced. The rate limit is a constraint, not a usage guideline.

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