Edit Task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals non-obvious behavior: partial update semantics ('Only include fields you want to change'), special handling for contact_id=null (detach), and preference for is_complete=true over deletion. However, it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or return values, which is a minor gap but not critical.

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 very concise and well-structured. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the second explains functionality, the third clarifies patch semantics, and the remaining sentences provide essential parameter-specific guidance. No redundant or filler text.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool without annotations or output schema, the description covers the essentials: what the tool does, when to use it, how to update partially, and special parameter behaviors. It doesn't mention return values or error scenarios, but the 100% schema coverage and clear behavioral notes make it sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that omitted fields remain unchanged (patch semantics), explains the preferred use of is_complete=true, and specifies that contact_id=null detaches the task. These enrich the parameter descriptions and justify a higher score.

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 'Update an existing task' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, and get_task by emphasizing modification and marking complete. The phrase 'preferred over deleting' explicitly differentiates from delete_task.

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?

Provides clear usage guidance: use for modifying task details or marking complete, only include fields to change, use is_complete=true instead of deleting, and pass contact_id=null to detach. It doesn't explicitly mention when to use create_task vs edit_task, but the context strongly implies that edit_task is for existing tasks. It names delete as an alternative not to use for completion, which qualifies as explicit guidance.

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