Modify an existing team task's status, priority, description, tags, or title to keep project tracking current.
Update an existing task's status, priority, description, or other fields
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | Task ID (e.g., t-001) | |
| priority | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. 'Update' implies mutation, but nothing is said about permission requirements, whether this is a patch or replace operation, reversibility, or what 'or other fields' actually permits.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no padding, but the trailing 'or other fields' is vague filler that adds no usable information.
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?
For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 17% schema coverage, the description omits the update semantics, permissions, and return behavior an agent needs. It is too thin for the tool's complexity.
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 only 17% (task_id alone), so the description must compensate; it names status, priority, and description but omits title and tags, and gives no value formats beyond the enums already in the schema. Partial compensation only.
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?
States a specific verb (update) and resource (task) plus the primary fields affected (status, priority, description). It does not distinguish itself from the mutating siblings assign_task and reassign_task, so an agent must infer the boundary from the field list alone.
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 on when to use this rather than assign_task or reassign_task, which also modify tasks. No prerequisites, no mention of partial vs. full update, and no note on whether omitted fields are preserved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.