tb_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal two useful behaviors: the done-status transition constraint and that notes are stored as timestamped entries. But it does not mention side effects like claim requirements, idempotency, revision checks, or what the response returns, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, starts with the core action, and contains no filler. Every clause adds value: the main purpose, the status-change caveat, and the note-storage behavior.

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 13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the core update action and one transition rule, leaving many important aspects (auth/claims, idempotency, revision handling, evidence links, return values) unaddressed. It is not complete enough for an agent to safely invoke this tool in all contexts.

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 low (23%), so the description must compensate. It adds semantics for status updates and note appending, but 10 of 13 parameters remain unexplained in both the schema and the description (actor, claim_token, expected_revision, idempotency_key, evidence_links, capability, etc.). This is insufficient for a parameter-heavy tool.

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 ('Update a task's status and/or append notes') with a specific resource (task) and function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tb_add_task or tb_claim by focusing on updating existing tasks rather than creating or claiming them.

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: update status or append notes. It also gives an important usage rule: moving to 'done' requires current status 'in_progress' or 'in_review'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full guideline coverage.

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