missive_update_task

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing a partial update (non-destructive). The description adds the important behavioral detail that only included fields are changed, which is not in the annotations. No contradictions.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences, zero wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and lists fields, the second clarifies the partial update behavior. It is well front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool has 7 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and behavioral nuance. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., updated task object) or error scenarios (e.g., if task_id not found). This is a minor gap for a mutation tool, but annotations partially compensate.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the partial update behavior ('Only the fields you include are changed'), which is not evident from individual parameter descriptions. This is a key semantic that helps the agent understand the tool's merge-like behavior.

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 the verb 'Updates' and the resource 'a single task's attributes', listing specific fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools like missive_create_task (create) and missive_get_task (read) by focusing on update semantics.

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 implies usage for updating an existing task, but does not explicitly specify when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like missive_get_task for reading or missive_list_tasks for listing. However, the partial update hint ('Only the fields you include are changed') provides clear context for typical usage.

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