Update a task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful constraints: parentId/subTaskIds are immutable and cause a 400, and deadlineDay/deadlineWithTime/deadlineRemindAt are mutually exclusive. However, it does not disclose what happens to unspecified fields on update, whether the operation requires special permissions, what the response looks like, or whether the update is idempotent. Some context is present, but key behavior remains undisclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded. The primary action is stated first, followed by two high-value behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema field formats.

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?

Despite the tool having 14 parametersressing, no output schema, and no annotations, the description offers only two sentences. It does not cover partial-update semantics, response format, error cases beyond the 400 for forbidden fields, prerequisites like task existence, or how to set/clear optional fields. Given the complexity, the description is too lean to be fully contextual.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description must compensate. It does add semantic value by explaining mutual exclusivity among three deadline fields and noting that parentId/subTaskIds are forbidden, even though those keys are not present in the schema. However, it does not clarify the meaning or intent for the many unannotated fields such as id, notes, title, isDone, tagIds, projectId, or deadlineRemindAt beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Updates individual fields of a task.' This clearly positions the tool as a partial-update operation and distinguishes it from siblings like sp_task_create, sp_task_delete, and sp_task_archive. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating which task is updated via the id parameter, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 constraints about what cannot be changed and mutual exclusivity, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as sp_task_create or sp_task_archive. There is no explicit guidance about when updates are appropriate or when another sibling tool should be used. The usage is implied from the name and title rather than stated.

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