teamleader_update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a task but does not disclose whether partial updates are supported, whether linked fields require both ID and type parameters together, what happens to omitted fields, or any permission/validation requirements. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the updatable fields. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and contains no filler.

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?

With 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the relationship between paired parameters (assignee_id/assignee_type, customer_id/customer_type), whether the update is partial or full, or what the response contains. An agent would need to infer critical calling conventions from the schema alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds a high-level summary of which fields can be updated but does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as the dependency between assignee_id and assignee_type or customer_id and customer_type. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'an existing task', and enumerates the updatable fields (title, description, due date, work type, assignee, customer, linked deal/project). It distinguishes itself from task creation and other task operations like complete/reopen/delete, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to modify an existing task's fields. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like teamleader_complete_task or teamleader_schedule_task for status/date changes. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it for updates, but exclusions are absent.

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