Update Story Task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behaviors. It does not mention the required 'confirm' parameter (CONFIRM_WRITE), the availability of 'dry_run', potential overwriting of fields, or any irreversible side effects. The description only states it updates a task, leaving the agent uninformed about safety mechanisms and mutation specifics.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Update a checklist task on a Shortcut story (e.g. mark complete).' It contains no filler words, immediately conveys the action and resource, and the example adds useful context without bloating the text.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not cover return values, prerequisite conditions, the meaning of confirm/dry_run, or how fields like owner_ids and description interact. For a tool of this complexity, the description is under-specified and leaves critical gaps.

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 only 14% (1 of 7 parameters has a description). The description adds value for the 'complete' parameter via the example 'mark complete', but it does not explain owner_ids, description, dry_run, or confirm beyond what the schema already states. Given the low schema coverage, the description must compensate more but falls short.

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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('checklist task on a Shortcut story'), with a concrete example ('mark complete'). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_story_task, delete_story_task, and update_story, so there is no ambiguity about what the 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?

The description implies usage when a checklist task on a story needs modification, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'use create_story_task to add a task' or 'use delete_story_task to remove one.' The guideline is clear but only implied, not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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