task_update

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

With only readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: enforced state transitions, separate-call semantics for verification vs review, caller identity acting as verifier, reviewer identity constraints, delay since verification, checks requirement, fresh-review requirement for done, require_review override, and open-subtask restrictions. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries rules rather than filler. However, it is a single dense paragraph with long semicolon-chained clauses, which slightly harms scanability despite being efficient.

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 complex mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers most critical behavior: transitions, identity rules, separate calls, review freshness, and subtask blocking. It still leaves 'reason' semantics and error/return behavior unaddressed, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'by' (caller identity is the verifier), 'verification_result' and 'review_result' semantics, the nested 'checks' list requirement, and status transition constraints. It does not explain 'reason' or clarify enum value meanings, so some compensation is missing.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Advance a task's status and record evidence') and immediately distinguishes this from generic updates by stating that transitions are enforced and evidence must be recorded. It is clearly not a sibling like task_move or task_show.

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?

It provides substantial conditional guidance: send verification_result and review_result in separate calls, reviews require a distinct reviewer identity and delay, and done requires a fresh review unless require_review=false. It lacks explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative routing (e.g., versus task_claim or task_move), but the operational conditions are clear.

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