update_task

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

The description discloses one useful behavioral trait: status changes are automatically tracked with timestamps. But with no annotations provided, it does not carry enough burden for a mutation tool—it lacks details on partial vs. full update, error handling, or permissions, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids redundancy and efficiently conveys the core purpose plus one behavioral note.

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 tool's 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview and a key behavioral detail. It could be more complete by explicitly stating partial update semantics, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

The input schema already describes all 12 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond generic mentions of 'change status' and 'update estimates,' which are already evident from 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 clearly states 'Update an existing task' with a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from create_task and delete_task. It also enumerates key update actions (change status, add progress notes, update estimates), reinforcing the tool's purpose.

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 phrase 'Use this to change status, add progress notes, update estimates, etc.' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like bulk_update_tasks or bulk_change_status, so it falls short of fully specifying when-not-to-use.

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