Update Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: omitted fields are preserved, and column_id only works when the project is in kanban view. It omits any note about permissions or side effects on subtasks when kind changes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: the mutation contract is stated in the first two sentences, followed by an Args block that only covers fields needing explanation rather than restating all 16. Slightly repetitive 'for CHECKLIST kind' phrasing, but no padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a 16-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, though, roughly three-quarters of the parameters rely on name inference alone, leaving the definition short of fully self-contained.

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% across 16 parameters, so the prose carries the burden. It does a good job on four of them — column_id (kanban constraint), kind (TEXT/NOTE/CHECKLIST with usage rule), sort_order (lower-first ordering), and items (required 'title' plus optional camelCase keys with value encoding) — but says nothing about desc, content, tags, due_date, priority, reminders, time_zone, is_all_day, start_date, or repeat_flag.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update a task') and immediately clarifies the partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are changed; omitted fields remain unchanged'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like dida365_move_task, dida365_complete_task, or dida365_batch_update_tasks, which an agent must disambiguate among.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The partial-update sentence implies this is the general-purpose editor (versus specialized siblings like move_task/complete_task), but the agent is left to infer that routing decision rather than being told it.

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