task_update_verification

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'Update'. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data), permissions required, or whether the update triggers downstream actions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices substance for brevity. It front-loads the purpose but lacks necessary context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, and three parameters without documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the effect of the update, return values, or how the tool fits into the overall task passport workflow.

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 description lists the three parameters (status, summary, evidence) but provides no additional meaning beyond the schema. The enum values for status are not explained, and 'evidence references' is vague. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should offer more detail but does not.

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), the resource (Task Passport verification), and the fields updated (status, summary, evidence references). It differentiates from sibling tools like task_update by specifying 'verification' context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., task_update, task_status). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether a task must be in a certain state or if verification must be initiated beforehand.

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