gid_task_update

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. It does reveal that the tool toggles completion and may prompt to update status, which are key behaviors. However, it omits details such as side effects (e.g., permanent changes), required permissions, or error handling (e.g., what happens if node or task doesn't exist). The description adds value beyond the schema but lacks comprehensive transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and result, and the second provides a key behavioral detail. There is no redundant or extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates essential information.

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 tool's simplicity (toggle a task) and the fact that the schema covers all parameters (100%) and there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the core functionality and a notable side effect (prompt for status update). However, it could be more complete by mentioning success/failure feedback or error scenarios (e.g., invalid node ID). Overall, it is sufficient for a simple tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the input schema already provides. For example, the 'task' parameter's description ('Task text without checkbox prefix') is already in the schema. No extra context or usage notes are given for the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's action (toggle task completion) and resource (a node). It uses specific verbs and resource identification ('Toggle task completion on a node'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., gid_tasks lists tasks, while this updates them). The phrase 'Marks [ ] ↔ [x]' makes the toggling behavior unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with sibling tools like gid_tasks or gid_edit_graph. The only contextual hint is that it prompts to update status when all tasks are done, but this is behavioral, not usage advice.

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