Update a task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Update a task' with no mention of idempotency, partial vs full replacement, side effects, authorization requirements, or error conditions. The input schema contains constraints (e.g., mutual exclusivity of date fields) that are not mentioned in the description, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 (one sentence) but lacks essential context. It front-loads the HTTP method and resource but omits usage guidelines, behavior, and parameter hints. For a tool with many parameters and complex constraints, this is under-specified, not appropriately sized.

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 the complexity of the tool (many optional parameters, nested customFields, date constraints), the description is woefully incomplete. No output schema exists to clarify return values. The description provides no pre-conditions, post-conditions, or examples, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema, which may not cover all use cases.

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?

The description adds no information about parameters. However, the input schema itself includes descriptions for several parameters (e.g., dueDate, duration, customFields), providing semantics. According to context, schema description coverage is 0%, but the actual schema contains descriptions; we score based on observed value. The description does not compensate for any gaps, but the schema covers the basics, so a 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 a task') and identifies the resource (task). The HTTP method and path are given. However, it does not differentiate this from other update tools (e.g., weeek_update_a_deal) beyond the resource name, which is adequate but not exemplary.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., weeek_create_task, weeek_get_one_task_info). No information about prerequisites, required fields, or scenarios where it should not be used. The description is purely declarative.

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