Update / complete task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key trait: this is a write operation gated by a preview/confirm step. However, it does not state permission requirements, whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, or whether the status change is reversible — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope followed by the status semantics and write-workflow note. No filler. The only weakness is the slightly misleading 'token from the preview' phrasing, which does not match the schema's confirm=true mechanism.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the field set and the write workflow but omits return values, partial-update behavior, and permission/prerequisite context. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 13%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it names six of the eight parameters (name, description, due date, priority, assignee, status) and clarifies the semantics of the status enum value 'complete'. Only task_id and confirm lack added meaning, and confirm is already documented in the schema.

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 ('Updates a task') and enumerates the mutable fields (name, description, due date, priority, assignee) plus the status change semantics ('status=complete marks the task as done'). An agent can clearly tell this mutates an existing task rather than creating one, though it never names clio_task_create or other siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides workflow guidance ('preview first, then confirm'), but this conflicts with the schema's confirm parameter, which says confirm=true can be used directly when the request contains everything needed. It gives no guidance on when to choose this over clio_task_create or clio_activity_update, and the always-preview-first framing may mislead an agent into an unnecessary extra call.

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