update_research_task

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

Annotations only give the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true). The description goes well beyond that: replacement-not-append semantics for attributes, the interaction between task privacy and note privacy, the private_note=false override, and the refusal of non-task sources. This is exactly the kind of behavior an agent can't infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded first sentence names the operation and its fields, with supporting constraints following. Each later sentence carries a distinct rule (replacement, privacy coupling, source refusal), though the privacy-note sentence is wordy and overlaps the schema's private/private_note descriptions.

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?

For an 8-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk ambiguity (replacement vs append, privacy propagation, guarded inputs). It omits return-value or partial-update confirmation details, but the safety-relevant behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 description adds real semantic value on top: that attributes replace rather than accumulate and that add_attribute behaves differently, plus the task/note privacy coupling. It largely mirrors rather than expands the individual parameter docs, so it falls short of 5.

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 (update/change) with the exact resource and the fields it touches: status, priority, privacy, attributes, description note. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'add_attribute' by explaining that this tool replaces while add_attribute appends, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly warns against using add_attribute for Status/Priority because 'Gramps Web ignores' the duplicate, which tells the agent when this tool is the right one. It also states the guard condition ('Refuses a source that is not a task'). It does not compare against broader siblings like update_object_fields, but the critical alternative is named.

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