update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that missing fields are cleared, today's plan and done state are preserved, alarms require a due time, and alarms appear in the desktop app. It leaves some operational gaps around permissions, invalid task IDs, invalid text, and error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the replacement behavior and clearing semantics, then lists the inline syntax rules in a compact sequence. Although it is long, every sentence appears to earn its place given the complexity of the text grammar.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the behavior, and it largely does: mutation semantics, field clearing, preservation rules, alarm prerequisites, and return are covered. It still lacks error cases, permission requirements, and details about the returned task shape.

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 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema for the text parameter: words become the title, #tag adds tags, ! and !! set priority, date forms set due days, @15:30 sets due time, @none clears dates, and @alarm sets alarm lead times. The id parameter is left to the schema.

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 and resource: replace a task's title, tags, priority, due date/time and alarm from one line of text. It also clarifies scope by saying unspecified parts are cleared while today's plan and done state stay, which distinguishes it from add_task and complete_task/reopen_task.

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?

Clearly implies this should be used when replacing multiple task fields from a one-line text, and warns that missing parts are cleared. It also implicitly excludes completion tools by stating the done state stays, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as add_task or complete_task.

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