Update a task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the edit is in-place and does not rewrite the note, and matching works on ids or unique text fragments including done/cancelled items. It stops short of stating what happens on no match or ambiguous fragment, or what the mutation returns.

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 compact sentences plus one routing clause; the edit scope and mode list are front-loaded and every phrase earns its place with no restatement of the title or name.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is mutated, how targets are resolved, and the sibling alternative. Only the failure/ambiguity behavior and return shape remain unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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, but the description adds intent-to-parameter mapping that the schema doesn't ('reopen', 'cancel', 'reword', 'reprioritize') and clarifies that the `task` argument accepts either an id or a unique fragment spanning closed tasks.

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?

Names a specific verb (edit) and resource (one task) and enumerates the concrete edit modes — reschedule, reprioritize, reword, reopen, cancel. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from complete_task and from note-rewriting siblings, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'Use complete_task to finish a task,' plus the lookup path ('Matches by id (from list_tasks) or a unique text fragment'). It also states the tool will reach done and cancelled tasks, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus a narrower one.

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