update_task

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

The description adds a key behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'Use null to clear notes or due.' This clarifies the semantics of null values, which is especially important for a patch operation. Annotations already indicate it is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those.

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?

Two short, information-dense sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and the null-handling detail is included without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 patch operation with annotations already covering safety and idempotency, the description is mostly sufficient. It could be improved by stating what the tool returns (e.g., updated task object), since there is no output schema. The null semantics are covered, and required parameters are in the schema.

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 only 50%, and the description helps compensate by explaining that null clears notes and due dates. It also enumerates the editable fields, mapping directly to the parameters. However, it does not add meaning for title or status beyond what the schema's constraints and enum convey, so the compensation is partial.

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?

Uses the specific verb 'Patch' and names the resource 'task' followed by an explicit list of updatable fields (title, notes, due date, status). This clearly distinguishes it from specialized siblings like complete_task or move_task, even without naming them.

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 usage: use this tool when you need to update those four fields. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives such as complete_task or reopen_task for status changes, or move_task for relocating tasks. The usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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