update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently explains partial-update behavior and how to remove a due date, which are non-obvious traits. It does not mention permissions or return format, but the core behavioral semantics are disclosed.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with zero wasted words. The key information about partial updates and clearing due date is presented efficiently.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is appropriately complete for a CRUD update tool. It covers the main behavioral nuance (partial update) and the special case for clearing due date. It doesn't explain return values, but that is often unnecessary and inferable from context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that omitted fields are unchanged and that clearDueDate: true removes the due date, clarifying parameter intent and interplay.

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 identifies the tool as updating an existing task, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task, complete_task, and delete_task by focusing on modification of existing tasks.

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?

It provides clear context: use when updating an existing task, and notes that omitted fields are unchanged, meaning partial updates are supported. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, but the purpose is clear enough against its siblings.

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