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 disclosing behavior. It mentions that the tool 'Validates status transitions and dependencies', which is useful context, but it does not disclose what happens on validation failure, whether the update is atomic, or any permission requirements. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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: 'Updates an existing task.' and 'Validates status transitions and dependencies.' It is front-loaded, free of fluff, and every word adds value.

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 straightforward update tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context but does not mention the return value or failure modes. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by indicating that status and dependencies have validation constraints, which helps the agent understand the significance of those parameters when invoking the tool.

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 tool 'Updates an existing task', using a specific verb and resource. It also adds the validation aspect of status transitions and dependencies, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, and list_tasks.

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 'Updates an existing task' provides clear context for when this tool should be used versus alternatives like create_task or delete_task. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or name alternative tools, though the intended use is fairly obvious from the verb and resource.

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