goldhold_task_update

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states that a task is updated. It does not mention whether fields are updated independently, whether the task must already exist, what happens to omitted fields, or any required permissions, so the agent is left to guess 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 entire description is a single clear sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and listing the affected fields. Every word adds meaning, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an ambiguous relationship to goldhold_task_complete, this description is too thin. It omits practical guidance such as whether updating status to done is handled here or via task_complete, how partial updates behave, and what the response contains.

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%, and the inline schema already describes each parameter with acceptable detail. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond enumerating the fields; it neither clarifies that multiple fields can be updated at once nor adds format or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') plus a resource ('a task') and enumerates the mutable attributes (status, priority, assignee), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like goldhold_task_create and goldhold_task_list. An agent can immediately understand what this tool acts on and what changes it makes.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever an existing task's status, priority, or assignee needs to change. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, such as whether goldhold_task_complete should be preferred for marking a task done, and no exclusions are stated.

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