tasks_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states 'update task by ID'. It does not disclose whether it performs partial or full updates, what happens on invalid fields, authorization requirements, or the return format. The schema hints at flexible fields but adds no behavioral context beyond the schema.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and target, making it easy for an agent to grasp the core purpose quickly.

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 a generic update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain field constraints, update semantics, return values, or how to handle partial updates, and it fails to differentiate itself from the numerous task-mutation siblings.

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%: both id and fields have descriptions, and fields includes an example of the expected structure. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Обновить задачу по ID' clearly states a specific verb (update) and resource (task by ID), distinguishing it from siblings like tasks_add (create) and tasks_complete (specific status change). It is concise and unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or relationships with siblings such as tasks_complete, tasks_archive, or tasks_add, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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