update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only restates the update action and the valid transitions. It does not describe side effects, required permissions/ownership, error behavior on invalid transitions, or the return value. The word 'update' implies mutation, but that is not enough for a lifecycle mutation.

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 sentence that delivers the core purpose and the transition table. There is no wasted words or required positioning, and the key information about lifecycle transitions is front-loaded.

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 simple 3-parameter tool, the description provides enough to call it correctly: task_id and a valid status, the tool targets a task node. However, it does not explain what happens on an invalid transition or whether the caller must be assigned the task, and the lack of an output schema and annotations leaves some ambiguity. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real semantic meaning beyond the enum by explaining valid transition mappings from planned to in_progress and from in_progress to a set of successor statuses. This clarifies why the starting status matters, which the schema alone omits. It does not explain task_id or notes, but those are straightforward.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update a TASK node lifecycle status.' It distinguishes the tool from workflow-level updates and other sibling tools by focusing on the TASK node, and the valid transitions make its scope unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (updating a task lifecycle status) and lists valid transitions, which guides the caller. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like claim_task, update_workflow, or release_task, leaving some ambiguity with similar mutation tools.

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