update_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation/open-world profile is covered. The description does add one useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: that clear_due=true clears the due date rather than requiring an empty value. It still omits whether a task identifier is mandatory and what happens when no field is supplied.

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?

Two compact sentences with the field list front-loaded and the clear_due exception following. It is appropriately sized for a 9-parameter update tool, with no filler, though the comma-separated field list is slightly terse.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is largely adequate. The remaining gap is that zero parameters are required, so an agent could call with no taskId and no title; the description never states that one identifier is needed, which is a meaningful omission for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents formats such as YYYY-MM-DD, 'today'/'tomorrow', partial title matching, and taskId priority over title. The description only restates the field list and the clear_due flag, adding no syntax beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (修改/modify) and resource (任务/task) and enumerates the modifiable fields (title, due date, importance, note, reminder), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_step or complete_task.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent how this differs from update_step, complete_task, or delete_task, nor when to prefer it over creating a new task. The field enumeration implies scope but provides no selection criteria.

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