update_task

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the core partial-update contract, including preservation of omitted fields and precise clearing semantics for notes and due dates. It also warns not to pass due and clear_due together, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint not captured in the schema.

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 four short sentences, front-loads the patch semantics, then gives the two field-clearing rules and the sibling-tool routing. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 mutation tool with an output schema already available, the description covers what an agent needs: partial-update behavior, preservation rules, clearing rules, conflict avoidance, and when to use sibling tools instead. No significant behavioral gap remains for correct invocation.

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 33%, so the description usefully compensates by explaining the ambiguous parameters: notes clearing via empty string, due preservation vs. clear_due removal, and the conflict between due and clear_due. It does not explicitly discuss title, but the patch-only framing covers it adequately and the ID parameters are documented in the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Patch') and clearly states the partial-update behavior: supplied fields are changed while all other task data is preserved. It distinguishes the operation from status changes and hierarchy moves by naming the sibling tools to use instead.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent away from this tool for status and hierarchy changes, naming complete_task, reopen_task, and move_task as alternatives. It also gives concrete guidance on when to omit fields versus when to clear them, including the clear_due conflict.

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