Update task

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'update'. It does not disclose whether updating status triggers side effects, if notes are appended or replaced, or any required permissions. The description does not contradict annotations, but adds minimal value.

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, which is concise but overly minimal for a tool with 3 parameters and mutation behavior. It could be slightly longer to add value without being verbose. Every sentence earns its place, but there is room for essential details.

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 modifies state, has 3 parameters, an output schema (unexplained), and sibling tools for task management, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, the effect on existing notes, or differentiate from task_start. Critical gaps remain.

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 0%, so description must compensate, but it only mentions 'status' and 'note' without explaining their meaning or constraints. taskId is not described. The enum for status is captured in schema, but the description adds no additional semantics or usage context.

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 it updates task status or appends a note, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like task_start and task_status by focusing on modification rather than creation or reading.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., task_status for reading). No prerequisites or conditions for updating tasks are mentioned. The description implies usage but does not exclude scenarios.

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