Update Pull Request Task

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint (true) and destructiveHint (false). The description adds that it can update either content or state (or both) and returns updated details. No contradictions, but could mention permissions or constraints (e.g., task must be unresolved).

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 concise (9 lines) and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Minor redundancy in 'Args:' and parameter listing, but overall efficient.

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 6 parameters and output schema exists, the description covers all input details and return type. Lacks mention of error handling or prerequisites (e.g., valid task ID), but sufficient for basic usage.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by listing all 6 parameters with clear explanations: repo_slug, pull_request_id, task_id (required), content (markdown format, optional), state (UNRESOLVED/RESOLVED, optional), and workspace (optional with default). Adds meaning beyond the bare 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 explicitly states 'Update a pull request task (content and/or state)', clearly identifying the verb (update) and resource (pull request task), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or get.

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 the tool is for modifying an existing pull request task, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for creation or deletion) or alternatives. However, the context from sibling names provides implicit differentiation.

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