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 behavioral disclosure, yet it only states the basic mutation. It does not reveal whether unspecified fields are preserved (partial vs full update semantics), what isCompleted=null means, how an empty name string is interpreted, or what happens when the given id does not exist - all critical unknowns for a write operation.

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 extremely efficient - nine words, verb-first, with zero filler - and the action is front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the expense of dropping the usage and behavioral detail that a second sentence could have carried without bloating the text, so it is not ideally sized for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Although the output schema covers return values, the description omits essential operational facts: whether updates are partial or full replacement, how to handle the overlap with complete_task, and error behavior for nonexistent ids or null/empty inputs. For an unannotated mutation tool with a functionally overlapping sibling, this is insufficiently complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only names two of three parameters and adds modest meaning - 'completion status' usefully clarifies the cryptic isCompleted key, while 'name' is self-evident from the schema. The required id parameter is never mentioned, and the semantics behind the defaults (name='' and isCompleted=null) are left unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 ('Update'), names the resource (task), and scopes the action to two concrete fields ('name or completion status'), which clearly separates it from the read, create, and delete siblings in the tool list. It stops short of a 5 because it never acknowledges the overlapping sibling complete_task, which can plausibly perform the same isCompleted update.

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 invoke this tool versus its sibling complete_task, which appears purpose-built to mark tasks done - the exact action update_task with isCompleted=true would perform. There are no conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives, leaving the agent to guess which tool to select for completion status changes.

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