update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing. It does not say whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, whether this is a partial merge or replace, whether status transitions are validated, or what confirmation is returned for a mutation tool with 9 parameters.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline — there is no front-loaded scope, no field hints, and nothing to structure.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is inadequate. An agent cannot tell whether partial updates are safe, what happens to unmentioned fields, or how the result is reported.

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 100%, and every property (id, tags, title, status, category, priority, depends_on, description, estimate_days) has its own description and enum where relevant, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Update an existing task'), clearly distinct from create_task/delete_task by the verb alone. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling mutation tools like complete_tasks or parse_natural_language_task, and no scope on what 'update' covers.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite ~20 sibling tools including create_task, get_task, and delete_task. The agent must infer that this is for modifying an already-persisted task.

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