update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates mutation ('update') but does not explain required permissions, concurrency handling (though 'version' hints at optimistic locking), or whether the operation is reversible. No details on side effects or response are given.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured approach (e.g., listing parameters in order). Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values or side effects. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., updated task object) or how to handle errors. The version parameter's purpose (optimistic locking) is not explained, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 only 43% (3 of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description lists 'status, assignee, description, etc.' but does not clarify the meaning or format of parameters like 'subject', 'tags', or 'assigned_to'. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving ambiguity.

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 states 'Update an existing task' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It lists example fields (status, assignee, description), distinguishing it from other update tools for different entities. However, the title is null, and the description could be slightly more specific about the tool'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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue' or 'update_userstory'. It does not specify prerequisites (e.g., existence of task) or when not to use it. The sibling list contains many similar update tools, so context would be helpful.

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