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 side effects. It discloses that completing a task automatically unblocks dependents and that dependency rewiring only applies to pending tasks. This goes beyond a generic 'update' description, though it could mention potential status transition restrictions or idempotency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by critical constraints and side effects. Every clause earns its place; no redundant wording.

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 description covers the main use cases: resolving, updating finding alone, and rewiring dependencies. It doesn't explicitly explain status transition behavior (e.g., moving back to in_progress), but given the rich input schema, it is sufficiently complete 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose, including the pending-only constraint for depends_on and the required finding. The description adds behavioral context (auto-unblock) but adds little new parameter-specific semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with 'Resolve a task after completing work on it,' which clearly identifies the verb (resolve) and resource (task). It also outlines multiple distinct capabilities (updating finding, rewiring dependencies) that distinguish it from sibling tools like add_task or get_all_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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: after completing work, and it specifies when a finding is required (completed/skipped/blocked). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough that an agent would know when to select this over siblings.

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