update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: only provided fields are changed, tags are replaced (not merged), and schedule has specific allowed values. However, it omits details like response format, error handling (e.g., what happens if uuid is invalid), or idempotency. The output schema exists but is not described, slightly reducing transparency.

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: a single introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters with short, informative labels. No redundant phrases or filler. The most critical information (partial update behavior) is front-loaded. Examples of efficiency: 'New tag list (replaces existing tags)' packs behavior into few words.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains core behavior and all parameters. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., uuid must refer to an existing task), return value details, and error handling. The output schema likely fills some gaps, but the description could enhance completeness with a brief note on what the tool returns.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so explicitly: for schedule, it lists allowed values ('inbox', 'anytime', 'someday'); for deadline/start_date, it specifies 'Unix timestamp'; for tags, it clarifies 'replaces existing tags'. Every parameter has a meaningful description, compensating completely for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Update an existing task. Only provided fields are changed.' It lists all parameters with explicit meanings, making it unmistakable what the tool does. The name 'update_task' aligns perfectly with the description, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that handle specific aspects (e.g., move_to_project, schedule_task) by its general update nature.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus more specialized siblings like move_to_project or schedule_task. It only implies usage for general task updates, but lacks explicit conditions or exclusions. For example, it doesn't advise using schedule_task for scheduling instead of update_task. This limits the agent's ability to choose the most appropriate tool.

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