tasks_edit

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that – '--after replaces the list; empty clears' and the rejection rule for multi-id title edits – but says nothing about permissions or what existing values are touched.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, and the constraint about id vs ids is front-loaded. The parenthetical sprint-only clause is slightly compressed but still readable.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers field scope and the key invocation constraint, and annotations handle safety. It leaves return behavior unaddressed, which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 every parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the replace/clear semantics of 'after' and the mutually exclusive id/ids rule, but much of that is already stated in the schema, so the marginal value is modest.

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 names a specific verb (edit) plus the exact fields it can mutate (title, description, assignee, dependencies, and sprint goal/start/end), which clearly separates it from status/move/link siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the field enumeration leaves little ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives hard invocation constraints ('Pass either id or ids (exactly one)', '--title with multiple ids is rejected'), which is stronger than implied usage. However, it never says when to reach for tasks_set_status, tasks_move, or tasks_link instead of editing fields here, so routing guidance is only partial.

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