Update a Task

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

The description adds behavioral insight by stating 'Fetches the current etag automatically,' which tells the agent it does not need to provide an etag. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true) and does not contradict them. However, it does not disclose partial-update semantics or 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 two concise sentences: the first lists updateable fields, the second explains etag handling. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the main updateable aspects and the etag behavior. It could be improved by noting that only provided fields are updated (partial update), but this is not critical given the schema.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal extra value. It mentions 'bucket (move)' and groups assignees, but these ideas are already present in the schema (e.g., 'Move to this bucket ID'). Baseline 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 it updates a Planner task and enumerates specific fields (title, bucket, due date, priority, progress, assignees). This differentiates from generic update tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling planner_update_task_details.

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 no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like planner_update_task_details. It neither states exclusions nor recommends other tools for different update scenarios, despite the presence of a similarly named sibling.

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