task_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool updates a status in a specific file, errors when the task line is not found, and matches by substring—these are key behavioral traits. It also notes the file is authored via plan_write, providing workflow context. It does not detail return values or authorization, but for a simple mutation tool this is adequate.

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 concise two-sentence block that front-loads the core action and immediately adds the most critical operational detail (substring matching and error condition). Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 2 required) and absence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral semantics: what it does, where, how matching works, and how to handle missing entries. It does not mention the success return value, but this is a minor gap for a tool whose only logic is updating a file. The schema fully documents the project and session_token requirements, so that gap is already filled.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; the substring matching clause is already present in the schema's description of the 'task' parameter, and the other parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema. No additional clarification or examples are supplied.

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 specifies the action ('Update a task's status'), the resource ('.codex-bridge/TASKS.md'), and the allowed values ('todo / in-progress / done / blocked'). It also notes the matching mechanism ('substring'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like plan_write and plan_read.

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 provides concrete usage context: it explains that the tool errors if the task line isn't found and explicitly states that TASKS.md is authored via plan_write, so adding tasks should be done by rewriting the file (implying the use of plan_write instead). This gives clear when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like plan_read for checking tasks.

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