Modify task fields like title, tags, notes, status, schedule, or project assignment. Pass empty project_id to detach from project.
Edit a task. Pass project_id="" to detach it from its project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| when | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| project_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions only the special detach behavior for project_id, but does not explain whether fields are partially updated, whether null values clear fields, or what the return value is. The mutation semantics are implied by 'Edit' but not elaborated, leaving agents uncertain about side effects.
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 two sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the special-case instruction is placed directly after. It is appropriately sized for the information provided, though it could be expanded without becoming verbose.
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 7 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema, this description is under-specified. It fails to explain update semantics (partial vs. full), the effect of null defaults, or how the tool differs from update_checklist. An agent would need to infer too much to call the tool correctly across all parameter combinations.
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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It enhances project_id with the special detach semantics, but other parameters (tags, when, notes, title, status) are left to inference from their names. No guidance is given on whether they are overwritten or how null interacts with them, which is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.
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 clear verb and resource ('Edit a task') and implies an update operation, distinguishing it from read tools like get_todos and creation tools like add_todo. However, it does not explicitly contrast with update_checklist or specify the full scope of editable fields, leaving some ambiguity.
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 description offers a specific usage hint (pass project_id='' to detach) but provides no general guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_todo or update_checklist. It does not state that this tool is for modifying existing tasks or when other tools are more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.