update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds the meaningful behavioral trait of partial updates (PATCH-like semantics), which is beyond what 'update' alone conveys. However, it does not disclose return value, permission requirements, validation behavior, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 consists of two short, purposeful clauses in a single sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff.

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?

The tool has 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description is minimal. It omits information about the return value, error conditions, field semantics, and whether the update is idempotent, making it insufficient for such a parameter-rich tool.

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 7% (only the 'id' field is documented). The description's 'Only send fields you want to change' provides a general rule for all 14 optional parameters but fails to explain the meaning of ambiguous fields such as 'hint', 'keep_unread', and 'sub_type_id'. This does not adequately compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'existing task', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_task and delete_task. The additional phrase 'Only send fields you want to change' clarifies the tool's partial-update 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 a usage rule (send only changed fields) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mark_task_done or create_task. The usage context is implied by the name and description, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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