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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool updates an existing task, and mentions custom field support, but it does not explain partial-update semantics, whether unspecified fields are preserved, required permissions, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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. It states the main purpose first, then adds the most relevant extra detail (custom_fields and its prerequisite) without wasted words.

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?

The schema is rich and covers all parameters, so the description does not need to re-explain them. But for a tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits return behavior and update semantics (merge vs replace). It is adequate for invocation but not fully complete in context.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by instructing the agent to call list_custom_fields to obtain valid custom field IDs first, which is a useful workflow hint not present in the schema. It also points directly to the custom_fields parameter as a distinguishing capability.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing task.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_task, get_task, list_tasks, and delete_task. The additional mention of custom_fields support further clarifies a unique capability.

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 phrase 'existing task' sets clear context for when this tool applies, implicitly excluding creation and deletion. It also gives a specific prerequisite: use list_custom_fields to resolve field IDs before passing custom_fields. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude cases where other update tools might be preferred.

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