tasks_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' implying a mutation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, as critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (mutation tool with nested parameters), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema's structure, failing to explain what 'taskId' or 'properties' entail. However, with only 2 parameters and a nested object, the baseline is 3 as the schema defines types and enums, but the description adds no value.

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 'Update an existing task' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('task'), but it's vague about what aspects can be updated and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tasks_batch_update' or 'tasks_update' (if present elsewhere). It's functional but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_batch_update' or 'tasks_create'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing task ID, or context for updates, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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