amulen_update_task

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing patch semantics ('only the fields you pass change') and a genuine gotcha ('user_ids replaces the whole assignee list') that warns of silent data loss. It says nothing about permissions, validation errors, or what the post-update response contains, so it is useful but not rich.

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 patch-semantics rule that governs every call. The Markdown-default sentence is mildly redundant with the schema's formato default of 'markdown', but it still aids a reader scanning the description alone.

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 13-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition gets the most important cross-cutting rule right (partial update) and flags the list-replacement trap. However, it leaves the majority of parameters unexplained and says nothing about the return value or failure modes, so an agent cannot fully predict the result of a call.

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 13 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains four of them meaningfully — descripcion/format defaults to Markdown, estado changes the workflow column, horas_reales logs actual hours, and user_ids overwrites the full assignee list — but leaves titulo, fecha_inicio, fecha_fin, puntuacion, horas_proyectadas and the three slugs entirely undocumented beyond self-descriptive names.

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 ('Update a task') and immediately qualifies it with patch semantics ('only the fields you pass change'), which distinguishes it from create-style siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with amulen_update_checklist_item or amulen_update_project, but the resource word 'task' plus the required slugs make the target unambiguous.

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?

'Use it to move a task (estado) or log real hours (horas_reales)' gives field-level intent for two common operations, which implies when the tool is the right choice. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternatives named, so routing between this and sibling update/create tools is left to inference.

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