update_task

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

Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the partial update nature, the special assignee behavior, and states that it returns the updated task. It does not mention permissions or error conditions, but for a mutation tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise—two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose, usage pattern, and a critical nuance (assignee handling). Every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity (21 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavioral traits and parameter relationships. It could be more complete by mentioning implications of partial updates (e.g., fields not passed are unchanged) but is sufficient for a typical update 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 schemas already document each parameter. The description adds a high-level pattern (pass only changed fields) and clarifies the difference between assignees, assignees_add, and assignees_rem. This adds some value but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 clearly states 'Update any field of a task' and contrasts with sibling tools like create_task and delete_task. The verb-resource pairing is precise, and the description distinguishes itself by noting the partial update pattern ('pass only the fields you want to change').

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 effectively conveys when to use this tool (updating specific task fields) and provides critical guidance on assignee handling (replace vs incremental). However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where alternative tools (e.g., update_bulk_tasks) would be more appropriate.

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