Update Task planning

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Atomically' indicates atomic update semantics, and 'Today/Tomorrow are resolved by Personal OS in the User timezone' explains how relative dates are handled. This is valuable context not present in the schema or annotations.

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, tightly crafted sentence that delivers both the primary purpose and a key behavioral nuance without any filler. It is well front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It covers atomicity and timezone resolution but omits essential details like required vs optional fields, timing constraints, or how 'scheduled' relates to due_date/due_time. The tool is relatively complex, so the description is insufficient for safe invocation without additional inference.

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 description must compensate. It only groups parameters as 'timeline and/or due information' but does not explain individual parameters like task_id, scheduled_date, due_date, or due_time, nor their relationships (e.g., when scheduled_date is relevant). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Atomically update Task timeline and/or due information.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('Task timeline and/or due information'), distinguishing it from the more generic sibling 'personal_os_update_task'.

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 this tool: when updating planning/due fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'personal_os_update_task' or state when not to use it, but the scope is well-defined enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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