update_task

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose side effects and constraints. It mentions updating but does not warn about potential overriding of lists, required permissions, or consequences of status transitions. The special syntax for append/add/remove is only in the schema, not the description.

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 two sentences long, directly stating the purpose and a key use case. It is concise without any unnecessary information, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, valid status transitions, error handling, or how the tool interacts with siblings like promote_task. More detail would be needed for complete understanding.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description highlights a few fields (status, priority, etc.) and the workflow transition use case, which adds some context, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 that the tool updates existing tasks by ID and can modify various fields like status, priority, and owner. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as create_task or delete_task by focusing on updates and workflow transitions.

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 advises using this tool to transition tasks through workflow states, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like promote_task or specify when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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