update_task

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a mutation but does not explain side effects, required permissions, partial update behavior, or the response format. The mismatch between 'description' in the text and 'title' in the schema adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 a single, compact sentence that is easy to parse. However, its brevity forgoes important details like parameter usage and side effects. It is concise but not complete, so it earns a high score for structure but not perfection.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too thin to fully contextualize the tool. It fails to mention the 'path' parameter, how to set a description (despite claiming to), or any constraints on allowed values beyond what the schema lists. The tool appears more complex than the one-sentence summary suggests.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds misleading parameter info by mentioning 'description' instead of 'title' and omitting 'path'. This undermines the baseline for high schema coverage, as the description actively confuses rather than supports interpretation.

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 updates a task by ID, focusing on status, priority, or description. It distinguishes from sibling tools like complete_task or create_task by specifying the update operation. However, it mentions 'description' while the schema defines a 'title' parameter, causing minor ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_task or create_task. The description only states the action without indicating prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended contexts.

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