task_update

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing key behaviors: list fields append and deduplicate, omitted fields are preserved, empty/no-op updates fail, and clearNextActions switches append to replace. These semantic details are crucial for safe use and are not present in the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then packs essential behavioral details into two sentences. There is no filler or repetition of schema information; every clause 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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers all critical usage aspects: the general patch behavior, list update semantics, preservation rule, failure condition, and the special replace flag. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Though the schema covers each parameter, the description adds important cross-parameter semantics: append-and-deduplicate for all list fields, preservation of omitted fields, the global failure on no-op updates, and the special replace behavior for nextActions. This meaningfully enriches the parameters beyond their individual schema entries.

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 states a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('current Task Passport'), and explicitly distinguishes the tool by noting it does not change lifecycle status. It also enumerates the affected fields, making its purpose unmistakable even among many sibling tools that change 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?

Provides clear context that this is for updating passport fields without status changes, and gives a concrete use case for clearNextActions ('to clear a stale plan before finalizing'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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