Update a task

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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses partial-update merge semantics, the side effect that status=completed marks the task finished, and that record_ids replaces rather than appends links. The link-replacement behavior is a destructive-ish effect worth flagging against destructiveHint=false, but it is explicitly warned about rather than hidden, so it is a caveat not a contradiction.

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 densely packed sentences, front-loaded with the mutable field list, then the merge rule, the status side effect, the record_ids replacement warning and the return shape. No filler and no repetition of schema text.

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?

A mutation tool with an output schema is adequately covered: merge semantics, the riskiest parameter's behavior and the return value are all stated. Minor gaps remain around failure modes for an unknown task_id and what happens on empty/partial input beyond the merge rule.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by clarifying record_ids is a full replacement ('pass every record it should stay linked to') and that status completed triggers a finished state, both of which are behavioral rather than syntactic detail the schema lacks.

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 (Changes) plus the exact set of mutable fields on a named resource (a task), identified by id. An agent can distinguish this from heliyos_tasks_create, heliyos_tasks_get and heliyos_tasks_delete from the description 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?

Implies the right usage through 'what you leave out is kept', which tells the agent this is a partial update rather than a replace, but it never names alternatives (e.g. tasks_create for new tasks, tasks_run for execution) or states preconditions such as the task needing to exist.

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