update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that updates execute immediately unless dry_run=true, that dry_run writes nothing and returns a values object, and that progress is computed rather than directly settable. It does not cover error conditions or permissions, but the main side-effect profile is disclosed.

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 main execution semantics are front-loaded, and every field entry in the compact list adds meaning. The list is semicolon-heavy but this is an acceptable way to pack needed detail. No filler or repeated wording is present.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is close to complete for invocation: all fields are described, controlled values are sourced, and dry-run feedback is specified. The normal non-dry-run return value is not described, but an agent still has enough to select and invoke the tool with correct arguments.

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 define each parameter and it largely does: append_description appends after a blank line while description replaces, allocated_hours is planned effort, progress is computed, priority has a range, deadline has a format, state is a workflow code, and stage is an exact display name. This substantially exceeds what the schema provides.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: update a task's mutable fields. It specifically says only mutable fields are affected and that execution is immediate unless dry_run is used, which distinguishes this from reading tools like get_task and list_my_tasks.

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 practical usage guidance: prefer allocated_hours over progress, use workflow codes from get_task_states, and use exact stage display names. It also clearly marks dry_run mode as a simulation. It does not explicitly compare with sibling alternatives, but the resource and verb are distinctive enough to avoid confusion.

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