update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful trait beyond schema: partial-update semantics ('Only the supplied fields change'), so unspecified fields are preserved. It remains silent on permissions/auth, whether the task must pre-exist, error/not-found behavior, and whether the update is idempotent.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the mutation semantics front-loaded immediately after the purpose statement. Nothing is repeated from structured fields and every sentence 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 16-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits permissions, failure modes, and what a successful update returns. The partial-update note is the key missing piece it does supply, and full schema coverage compensates for the parameter detail gap, but an agent still lacks operational context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 16 parameters (formats, enums like priority, RFC 5545 recurrence, date formats) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates fields on an existing task'), making it clearly distinct from create_task, move_task, and complete_task by naming the existing-resource mutation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling mutators such as move_task or batch_tasks, which would be needed for a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb (edit an already-existing task) and the partial-update note signals the intended pattern of supplying only changed fields. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over move_task, complete_task, or batch_tasks for bulk edits, and no stated prerequisites.

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