Update Task

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, but they say nothing about partial-update semantics. The description adds the key trait that unspecified fields are left untouched, plus that due=null and notes=null actively clear data and that status='needsAction' reopens. It does not mention response shape or what happens on an invalid task_id, which keeps it off 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core mutation semantics, then the null-clearing edge cases, then the sibling redirect. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers partial updates, clearing, reopening, and the sibling alternative. It leaves the return value and error behavior unstated, which is the only real gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds a distinction the schema does not encode: omitting a field leaves it unchanged versus passing null clears it. The reopen behavior of status='needsAction' is repeated from the schema and adds no new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a task's title, notes, due date or status') and immediately narrows scope with 'Only the fields you pass are changed.' The explicit pointer to gtasks_complete_task separates it from the nearest sibling without opening any schema.

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?

Names an alternative tool (gtasks_complete_task) and the exact condition that should route the agent there instead ('to simply finish a task'). It also gives the when-to-use rule for the null arguments, so both the tool choice and the invocation mode are covered.

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