sp_update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' and the immutability of two fields, but does not explain whether the update is partial or full, whether it returns the updated object, or any side effects. The lack of detail on mutation semantics is a significant gap for an agent.

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: two sentences with no waste. The constraint note is front-loaded and useful, and the overall structure is ideal for an update tool.

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 tool has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify whether unspecified fields are left unchanged or reset, what the tool returns, and any prerequisites like authentication. An agent could not fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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 36% (4 of 11 properties have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the note about parentId and subTaskIds, which are not even in the schema, potentially causing confusion. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters, so the agent gains little clarity on parameter expectations.

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 tool updates an existing task, using the verb 'update' with the resource 'task'. It also mentions a specific constraint about parentId and subTaskIds. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like sp_create_task or sp_delete_task, though the verb implies the intended difference.

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 gives a constraint (parentId and subTaskIds cannot be changed) but does not clarify when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no explicit 'use this when' guidance, though the purpose implies it's for modifying existing tasks. The note is a usage caveat rather than a full guideline.

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