update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the Plan state is authoritative, that an audit Event is placed in the Plan Outbox, and that retries are idempotent on persistence failure. It does not detail failure modes such as revision mismatch, but the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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?

Three tightly scoped sentences with the action summary first, then permission conditions, then persistence behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a moderately complex mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions. The description covers purpose, permissions, and outbox behavior, but leaves required parameter semantics and sibling-tool boundaries ambiguous. The output schema covers return values, so that part is not needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains semantics for status and role constraints, but says nothing about required parameters like expected_revision, task_id, actor_id, or plan_id. expected_revision is especially opaque and critical for correct invocation.

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 concrete actions (finish, block, cancel, recover) on a task and clarifies the supported status transitions. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like cancel_task, recover_task, or edit_task, so the boundary is not explicitly established.

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 explicit permission rules: claim owners may set done/blocked/cancelled on in_progress tasks, and roles with recover_task permission may set pending on blocked tasks. It does not give when-not guidance or name sibling alternatives, but the context is otherwise clear.

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