update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one genuinely valuable disclosure: the accepted "status" value is unverified and rejection should be handled by retrying. Beyond that it says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are left untouched, or partial-update semantics for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded before the caveat. The second sentence is hedged but earns its place by flagging a real failure mode.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 33% schema coverage, the description covers the highest-risk item (unverified status enum) but omits permissions, required-vs-optional behavior, and how unspecified fields are treated. Adequate, not complete.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate; it partially does by mapping use cases onto parameters (reschedule→due_date, reassign→owner_id, mark done→status) and warning that the status value is unverified. However, title and description params remain undocumented anywhere, and no format hints are given for due_date.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a task") and enumerates the three common mutations (reschedule, reassign, mark done), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as update_lead or update_contact, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 examples (reschedule, reassign, mark done) imply when to reach for this tool, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named. The only operative instruction is reactive — "check the result and adjust if rejected" — which is not a routing rule.

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