Google Tasks 수정

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., overwrite semantics, clearing fields, or effects on completed tasks). It merely restates the fields and examples, so it adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, an Args list, and examples. Every section serves a purpose; there is no redundancy or filler. The examples are concise and directly demonstrate usage.

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 simple update operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for basic use: which fields can be updated and example invocations. However, it lacks edge-case guidance (e.g., how to clear a field, whether listId is needed for default list, or behavior on invalid IDs), which would improve completeness.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but the description adds clarity by explicitly marking optional parameters ('선택') and providing example argument values (e.g., 'id: "..."', 'notes: "새 메모"'). This helps the agent understand how to map natural-language requests to parameters, going 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 states it modifies Google Tasks task titles, notes, and due dates, using the verb '수정합니다' (edits). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_add (create), tasks_complete/uncomplete (status changes), tasks_delete, and tasks_list.

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?

Examples provide concrete usage scenarios ('add a memo', 'change the title') and natural-language mappings, conveying when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as tasks_complete or tasks_delete, so the when-not-to-use guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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