Update Task

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds crucial nuance: partial update semantics ('Only supplied fields change') and the special behavior of tag_ids ('replaces the complete Tag set'). This goes beyond the structured annotation data and discloses non-obvious mutation behavior, though it does not cover potential edge cases like what happens when status is set to completed.

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 concise sentences, immediately front-loading the core purpose and then adding a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and a complex domain (tasks, containers, planning), the description is adequate but not complete. It explains the core update semantics and tag handling, but leaves questions about field interactions (e.g., clearing fields with null, moving tasks via container_id, and lifecycle changes from status transitions). This is a minimum viable description for an API of this complexity.

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 schema description coverage at only 23% and 13 parameters, the description carries a heavy burden to explain parameter behaviors. It only clarifies tag_ids replacement, leaving ambiguous distinctions like due_at vs. due_date vs. planned_for_date, and the exact semantics of fields like sort_order or container_id. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the low schema coverage, so a 2 is warranted.

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 the action: 'Partially update one owned active Task.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('Task'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'one' (vs. bulk) and 'owned active' (vs. archived or unowned). The additional note about tag_ids replacing the complete set further clarifies the exact behavior.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: for updating a single owned active Task, and that only supplied fields change (partial update). It implicitly distinguishes from bulk_update_tasks by 'one' and from update_task_planning by focusing on general task fields. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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