update_task

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 disclose the notable behavior that a dismissed task is not recreated by later extraction, which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as idempotency, whether fields are replaced or merged, side effects, or required permissions. The single behavior disclosed is meaningful but leaves many unknowns.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and wastes no words. The status enum is listed inline efficiently. It could be slightly more structured, but it is concise and readable.

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 the tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains status but leaves the semantics of other fields, the effect of partial updates, and the return value undefined. The absence of any behavioral context beyond the dismissal note makes it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact.

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 only 17% (one of six parameters has a description). The description adds semantics for 'status' by listing the enum values, which is valuable, but it does not explain the meaning of 'notes', 'title', 'priority', or how 'engagement' interacts beyond the schema's own note. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage on the other parameters.

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 tool sets a task's status or fields, naming the specific resource and the action. It also enumerates valid status values, which adds specificity. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like update_finding, but the noun 'task' makes 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not mention when not to use update_task or point to sibling tools like list_tasks for reads. The purpose is only implied, and the agent is left without explicit routing cues.

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