update_task_effort

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses non-effects (no worked-time logging, no billing or accepted-effort changes), preservation semantics ("Unlisted users stay unchanged"), and a recompute side effect tied to taskTotalEstimate. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what the response contains, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose plus the negative scope are front-loaded. It is dense to the point of reading as a clause list, which costs a little readability but wastes no words.

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 nested-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects and recompute rules. The remaining gap is response shape and error/permission behavior, but with annotations absent and no output schema the description is close to sufficient.

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% with nested objects fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond that by explaining the conditional behavior of taskTotalEstimate — when supplied it wins, otherwise the total is derived from user and unassigned-category estimates — which is not inferable from the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Set planned effort for assigned users") and immediately delimits scope against adjacent operations by saying it never logs worked time or touches accepted effort/billing. An agent can distinguish it from log_time_entry, get_task_effort and update_task without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow ("Find assignees with get_task_effort and assign missing users with update_task first") and an explicit exclusion ("Regular tasks only"). It names the sibling tools to call before this one, which is exactly what an agent needs to sequence a multi-tool task.

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