Update task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose PATCH semantics, the use of clear_* flags, and a permission requirement (key owner must be participant or team lead). However, it omits return format, error behavior, and side effects such as history or notification updates, so transparency is only partial.

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 two tightly scoped sentences, front-loaded with the core action and semantics. It avoids redundancy and does not repeat schema-level details, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 a mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is not complete enough for confident invocation. It covers core semantics and permissions but lacks return-value expectations, error conditions, and parameter-level detail for a 13-parameter tool.

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 38%, and the description does not compensate for the eight undocumented parameters. It explains the general clear_* flag pattern and PATCH behavior, but fails to clarify priority, assignees, estimate_hours, or the clear flags' exact semantics, leaving much of the parameter surface ambiguous.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'a task's fields,' and distinguishes it from create/list/get siblings by specifying PATCH semantics. The mention of clear_* flags further clarifies the intended mutation behavior, so an agent can select this tool unambiguously.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create-task or other task-related tools, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. It implies usage through PATCH semantics but leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context from the sibling list.

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