taskhub_task_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation via 'Update' and hints at partial update via 'any fields to change', but omits details like permissions, reversibility, response format, or effects on unspecified fields. The tip about statusId adds some transparency but significant gaps remain.

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 sentences with zero redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the tip is placed after the main instruction, keeping the structure clean and efficient.

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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, the schema fully documents them, and the description covers the key behavior of partial updates and the statusId dependency. However, it lacks information on response/return value and any error conditions, which might be expected given no output schema, but the essential call guidance is sufficient.

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 parameters are fully documented. The description adds value by emphasizing that only specified fields change and by providing the statusId prerequisite via taskhub_statuses, which is not evident from the schema alone. This compensates slightly beyond the baseline.

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 a task' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from create/delete/get siblings by emphasizing modification of existing tasks. The phrase 'Specify the task ID and any fields to change' further clarifies the operation's scope.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to update an existing task) and includes a practical tip for status changes by referencing the taskhub_statuses tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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