Update Task

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, aligning with an update operation. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that fields can be cleared by setting to null. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage tip. No waste, front-loaded with core action.

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 15 parameters and 1 required, the description covers the main usage pattern. However, it does not address validation, error cases, whether all fields are mutable (e.g., taskNumber likely immutable), or what happens with no changed fields. No output schema so return not needed, but more context on permissible changes would improve completeness.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds overarching guidance ('Only include fields you want to change' and null clearing) that amplifies the schema descriptions, which already include 'or null to clear' for many parameters. This adds meaningful usage semantics.

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 'Updates any property of an existing task,' specifying the verb (update) and resource (task). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, complete_task, etc., by focusing on updating any property.

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 basic usage guidance: 'Only include fields you want to change. Set a field to null to clear it.' However, it does not explicitly tell when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., complete_task for completing, move_task for moving), nor does it exclude any context.

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