Update task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, which align with the PATCH operation. The description adds the common use case but no further behavioral details (e.g., error behavior, partial update semantics).

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the action and a practical example. It is concise without wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative.

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 7 parameters, 2 enums, and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not cover most parameters, response format, or potential errors, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage, the description should explain parameters. It only mentions the 'status' parameter and its 'Complete' value, ignoring the other 6 parameters (name, description, priority, due_at, assignee_id) and their 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 states 'PATCH a task' which clearly indicates the action and resource. It adds a common use case 'mark complete by setting status=Complete', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like clio_create_task or clio_get_task, though it is implied.

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 provides a concrete example usage (marking a task complete) but does not specify when not to use this tool or mention alternatives such as creating or deleting tasks.

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