Yougile Update Task

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

With only destructiveHint: false in annotations, the description adds real value: 'Only the given fields change' discloses partial-update behavior and that unspecified fields are untouched. However, it omits notable behaviors — the confirmation_required guard for writes into client-facing projects (documented only on the confirm parameter) — which is meaningful behavioral context an agent would benefit from having in the description.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The action and resource are front-loaded, the field list is compact, and the scoping rule 'Only the given fields change' is an efficient second sentence that earns its place. Nothing extraneous.

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 16-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual surface well but leaves key operational gaps: the assignee replace/add/remove semantics, the distinct checklist item operations, and the confirmation_required flow for client-facing projects are left to the sparse schema. The input format clues (task as 'ID-123' and date formats) are present in the schema, but the conflicting field operations warrant description-level clarification.

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?

At 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially: the field list maps onto most of the 16 parameters (title, description, deadline, plan_hours, completed, archived, color, assignees, checklist items) and clarifies that assignees are passed 'by name.' But it does not distinguish between the semantically different assignee params (assignees = replace vs add_assignees vs remove_assignees) or the checklist operations (add_items, check, uncheck), leaving ambiguity that the low-coverage schema does not resolve.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('a task'), then enumerates the editable attributes (title, description, assignees, deadline, planned hours, completion, archive, color, checklist items). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like yougile_create_task and yougile_move_task, and the final sentence 'Only the given fields change' pins down partial-update semantics unambiguously.

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 verb and field list make it evident this is the tool for modifying existing task attributes, and 'Only the given fields change' implies it is a patch, not a replace. However, the description never explicitly routes the agent away from siblings such as yougile_move_task (for repositioning) or yougile_log_time (for time), nor states any when-not-to-use conditions — the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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