Update Task

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

The description reveals that the version field is handled automatically and that omitted fields remain unchanged, which are key behavioral traits beyond the annotations. Annotations already show readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds context without contradicting them.

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 core action and immediately followed by the most important caveat. Every word earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and limited schema descriptions, the description covers the core behavioral nuance (partial patch, version handling) but omits return value expectations and per-field details. This leaves some gaps but is acceptable for the complexity.

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 44%, so the description partially compensates with the partial-patch rule that applies to all parameters. However, it does not elaborate on the meaning of several parameters like status, tags, or milestone, leaving some semantics to be inferred from names alone.

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 'Update an existing task' with a specific verb and resource, and adds partial patch semantics that distinguish it from task_create/delete. The sibling tools include task_create and task_delete, making the purpose 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?

The description gives explicit instructions on how to use the tool: 'only include the fields you want to change' and directs not to pass the version field. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use task_create for new tasks) but the context is clear for an update operation.

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