Update task

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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: patch behavior (only passed fields touched, omitting notes leaves existing notes intact), and clear_due semantics. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradiction, and gives the agent essential knowledge for safe invocation.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second clarifies patch behavior and clear_due, and the third provides a critical limitation with an alternative. No fluff or redundancy.

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 straightforward update tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: the fields that can be changed, the guardrails for partial updates, how to clear a due date, and what cannot be done. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Description adds value beyond the schema by explaining patch semantics that apply to all parameters, and specifically clarifies due/clear_due behavior and notes omission. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions on notes and title, and enhances the 67% coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Change' with the resource 'task' and enumerates the fields (title, notes, due date). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool move_task by explicitly stating it cannot change parent or position.

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 explicit when-not guidance ('Cannot change parent or position') and names the alternative ('use move_task for that'). It also clarifies patch semantics, telling the user that only passed fields are touched, which indicates when to use the tool (when modifying specific fields) and how to omit fields safely.

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