update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it updates a task via PUT, which implies mutation but does not clarify whether it is a partial or full replacement, side effects, required permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 very short with no filler words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it sacrifices useful contextual detail for brevity.

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 tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is underdeveloped. It does not explain update semantics, which fields are updatable, how id is used, or how extraBody/extraQuery interact with the update operation.

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 89%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, landing at the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a task'), and the endpoint 'PUT /tasks/{id}' reinforces the action. It is clear enough to identify the tool's core function, though it does not articulate scope or distinguish it from create_task/get_task in explicit terms.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_task, get_task, or list_tasks. The description implies 'update existing task' but gives no context around prerequisites, completion, or conditions for use.

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