update-task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must explain behavioral traits, but it only says 'allows changing any properties' without covering partial vs full update, error handling, required resources, or permissions. The phrase 'any properties' is also misleading because the schema restricts updatable fields.

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 two short sentences with key information front-loaded. It is concise, though the second sentence is somewhat generic and could be tightened.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain partial update semantics, the necessity of listId/taskId, error conditions, or what a successful update returns.

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 schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds marginal value by naming a few examples ('title, due date, importance') but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already contains.

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') and resource ('existing task in Microsoft Todo'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-task and delete-task. It also mentions scope (Microsoft Todo), making the tool's purpose 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 phrase 'Update an existing task' implies use when modifying an existing task rather than creating or deleting one, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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