update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool updates an existing task but does not disclose partial vs full update semantics, error handling for missing IDs, whether fields are merged or replaced, or what is returned. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded and direct. However, it is under-specified, and while concise, it sacrifices necessary context for brevity.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It offers only a basic statement of purpose and does not cover required fields, update behavior, or any usage context that would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 100% for all five parameters, including allowed values for 'state'. The description itself adds no parameter-level context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb and resource ('Update an existing task') with an obvious update domain. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings beyond the name, the sibling set includes create_task and delete_task, so the purpose is unambiguous. Lacks scope details like which fields are updatable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description is purely definitional and does not mention the need for an existing task or when updating is appropriate compared to creating or deleting.

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