update_task

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

The description mentions that only provided fields will be updated (partial update behavior), which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling on non-existent IDs, permission requirements, or side effects on related entities. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it partially meets it.

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 with two sentences, no redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every word 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 (6 simple parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers what can be updated and the partial update behavior. It could mention that the task must exist and that the tool likely returns the updated task object, but it is adequate for an 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, it adds context by grouping parameters into 'task name, billing settings, and activity status' and clarifies that updates are partial ('Only provided fields will be updated'). This adds value 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 the action ('update') and the resource ('existing task'), and lists the types of fields that can be modified (name, billing settings, activity status). This differentiates it from sibling update tools for other entities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_task or delete_task. It does not specify prerequisites, such as the task needing to exist, or when it is appropriate to update versus other operations.

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