update_task

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses the side effect of auto-claiming, but omits other critical behavioral details like error handling (task not found), idempotency, or whether partial updates are supported.

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 sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core operation, followed immediately by the critical side effect. Every word earns its place.

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?

Adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for a 12-parameter mutation tool lacking annotations and output schema. Missing explanation of auto-claim mechanics, the interaction between tags/remove_tags, and error scenarios.

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing baseline 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—mentioning 'fields' generically without clarifying the unusual requirement that tags, remove_tags, and depends are mandatory (requiring empty arrays for no-op).

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?

Clear verb ('Update') and resource ('existing task') with specific scope. The 'auto-claims' behavior distinguishes it from sibling tools like annotate_task or complete_task, though it could clarify what 'fields' entails.

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 auto-claim behavior provides implicit guidance (use this when taking ownership), but lacks explicit when-to-use comparisons against siblings like create_task or annotate_task, and doesn't warn about the required array parameters.

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