conduyt_update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses two important traits: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you provide are changed; omit a field to leave it as-is') and the required scope. It stays silent on error behavior, reversibility, and side effects, though the schema documents the completedAt/task.completed effects for status 'done'.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the core action and patch semantics are front-loaded and the alternative route follows immediately.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: identity, patch semantics, permission, and the done-routing alternative. Return shape and failure modes are unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the rich field-level schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a semantic rule the schema does not state: omitted fields are left unchanged, which tells the agent an update is a patch rather than a replace. That meaningfully supplements the per-field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing task's fields.' It also names the sibling conduyt_complete_task as the route for a related but distinct operation, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance ('To mark a task done, prefer conduyt_complete_task') and a prerequisite ('Requires tasks:edit'). It does not cover edge cases such as when to create versus update or how to handle unknown task IDs, but the main exclusion is clear.

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