update_task

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

Annotations indicate the tool is idempotent and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'update'. It does not explain partial update behavior, what happens on missing ID, or return values (no output schema). The description adds minimal value over annotations.

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 extremely concise (three words) but lacks structure and informative content. It could be slightly expanded to include key details without being verbose.

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 incomplete. It fails to explain update behavior, error handling, or response format. The annotations help with idempotency, but the description should provide more context for a complete understanding.

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 the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not clarify relationships between parameters or update semantics (e.g., only provided fields are updated). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (update) and resource (task), making it distinct from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, and get_tasks. However, it is very brief and does not elaborate on the scope or specific fields that can be updated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) or comparisons with create_task. The idempotentHint annotation suggests safe retries, but the description fails to mention this.

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