Update Task Description or Checklist

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that item IDs come from planner_get_task, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as whether the description is replaced entirely (though the schema notes 'replaces the existing one') or how invalid item IDs are handled.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then specifies the distinct operations. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

While the description covers the primary operations, it lacks details about return values, error behavior, or edge cases (e.g., what happens if an item ID is invalid). With no output schema and five parameters, the description could provide more context on expected outcomes or prerequisites, though it does mention the source of item IDs.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explicitly linking check/uncheck operations to item IDs obtained from planner_get_task and by grouping parameters into logical actions (description update, add items, check/uncheck). This enhances understanding beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: updating a task's description and managing checklist items. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like planner_update_task by specifying the exact operations (description, add/check/uncheck checklist), making it highly specific.

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 useful contextual guidance by noting that item IDs come from planner_get_task, indirectly indicating a prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like planner_update_task, nor does it mention limitations or opposing conditions.

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