Update Task

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

Annotations already cover mutation safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral details like the allowed status values ('open' or 'complete') and ISO 8601 date format, which go beyond the schema. No contradictions with 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 a single purpose sentence plus a compact argument list. Every line provides necessary information without fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 simplicity of the tool (4 params, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers all parameters and purpose adequately. It does not describe the return value, but for an update operation that is not critical, and the annotations provide safety context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: task_id, status with allowed values, assigned_to as account ID, and due_at as ISO 8601 date. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, though it does not elaborate on null semantics.

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 starts with 'Update a task's status, assignee, or due date,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and specific fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task or list_tasks.

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 implies when to use the tool (when updating task fields), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no reference to sibling tools for other update scenarios, so usage context is only implied.

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