Update task by title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing key behaviors: what happens if multiple tasks match the query, whether it updates the first match or errors, whether it performs a partial or full replacement, any required permissions, or the return value. The description is too thin to inform an agent about side effects or failure modes.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured and front-loads the core action. However, its brevity is a double-edged sword: while concise, it sacrifices critical detail that is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no contextual information needed to invoke it correctly: no clarification of matching semantics, update behavior, required fields, or expected response. For a tool of this complexity, the description is grossly incomplete and would leave an agent guessing on nearly every aspect of its use.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and 13 parameters, the description must explain the parameters, but it only implies the 'query' parameter via 'by title query'. It does not clarify the meaning of 'title' (is it the new title?), 'status', 'priority', 'reason', 'source', or other update fields. The description adds almost no value beyond the parameter names and types, making it impossible for an agent to know how to construct a correct update.

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: finds a task by title query and updates it. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from siblings like backlog.find_tasks_by_title (which only finds) and backlog.update_task (which updates by ID). The title 'Update task by title' reinforces the intent. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for updating a task when you have its title but not its ID, nor does it warn about potential multiple matches or recommend using find_tasks_by_title first. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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