update-task-body

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds important behavioral context: it reads the current body, preserves the rest including inline images and file links, keeps the same mimeType, and returns replacedCount and mimeType. It also discloses failure conditions for missing or duplicate oldText, which is valuable detail beyond the annotations.

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 purpose and alternative are front-loaded, followed by concise rules and useful examples. The structure is easy to scan, and every section contributes to correct invocation without unnecessary filler.

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 the mutation complexity, full parameter coverage, annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the replacement behavior, constraints, failure cases, and return values, so an agent has enough information to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for oldText and replaceAll: exact matching, duplicate handling, and the need to add surrounding text for uniqueness. It does not add much for projectId or taskId, but those are straightforward identifiers already documented in the schema.

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 and resource: replace part of a task body. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from update-task by naming the scenario where this tool is preferred, so an agent can select it without inspecting the 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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use rule: use this instead of update-task when only a few spots in a long body change. It also documents failure conditions and the uniqueness requirement, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to invoke it.

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