task_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool updates status and optional fields, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, rate limits, or response behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loading the verb and resource, then detailing requirements and optional fields. No superfluous content, earning its place efficiently.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, but the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or validation behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, leaving the agent underinformed about what to expect after 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 baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic value by specifying that taskId comes from progress_query results, providing status examples, and clarifying notes as progress notes/blockers. However, it does not deeply elaborate parameter usage beyond 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 clearly states 'Update the status of a tracked task,' specifying the verb (update) and resource (task). It distinguishes from sibling tools like progress_query (query only) and agent_status (agent status), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 advises using the tool after completing or blocking a task to keep delivery state current, which provides clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes that taskId comes from progress_query results. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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