backlog.update_taskUpdate an existing task's fields, such as status, priority, title, or description, through the backlog API to keep project data current.
Updates task fields through the running backlog API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| source | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| priority | No | ||
| session_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| external_ref | No | ||
| blocked_reason | No | ||
| idempotency_key | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'updates task fields' without clarifying whether it performs partial updates, whether it is idempotent, what happens when the task is not found, or any permission requirements. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavior unstated.
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 concise at one sentence, which is efficient, but it is so sparse that it sacrifices necessary information. It front-loads the action but omits any elaboration. While brevity is good, the content is under-specified, so it barely meets the minimum for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what fields can be updated, whether partial updates are allowed, what the response looks like, or any constraints. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly with the information provided.
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%, meaning the schema provides no explanations for any of the 12 parameters. The description also fails to mention any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and format of fields like reason, source, agent_id, and idempotency_key. This is a significant gap that the description does not compensate for.
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 clear action ('Updates task fields') on a specific resource ('task'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_task or list_tasks. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from update_task_by_title or update_task_status, so it relies on the tool name to signal the difference. Still, the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like update_task_by_title and update_task_status exist, but the description does not mention them or provide criteria for selection. An agent must infer usage context from the name alone, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.