reclaim_update_task

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

The description discloses that the tool performs a PATCH operation (only provided fields change) and includes an important caveat about notes overwriting. The idempotentHint annotation (false) is consistent with the update behavior described, and no contradictions exist.

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?

Two sentences and an important note convey all necessary information with no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical usage detail is highlighted effectively.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance (PATCH semantics, notes overwrite) and provides a workflow for a common edge case. It lacks examples but is largely complete for a mutation tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the PATCH operation's effect on all parameters and specifically warns about the notes parameter's overwrite behavior, enhancing understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 that the tool updates specific fields of an existing Reclaim.ai task via a PATCH operation, which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like reclaim_create_task (create) and reclaim_get_task (read).

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 provides explicit guidance for appending to notes (use reclaim_get_task first) and implies use for updating specific fields. While it doesn't exhaustively cover all sibling distinctions, the critical warning about notes offers clear when-to and how-to context.

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