task_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that list fields append and clearNextActions replaces, and it clarifies that lifecycle status is unchanged. However, it does not cover auth needs, idempotency, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a key behavioral detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main update functionality and the append/replace semantics. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but is sufficient for typical use.

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 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining the append behavior for list fields (tags, writeScope, constraints, nextActions) and the replace behavior for clearNextActions. The enum for risk is already in schema, but the description adds value for other parameters.

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 tool updates specific fields (objective, constraints, write scope, next actions, tags, risk) of the current Task Passport, and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it does not change lifecycle status.

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 implies usage for updating details without changing lifecycle status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_finalize or task_park. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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