edit_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that omitting a field leaves it unchanged and that an empty string clears optional fields, plus reparenting constraints. This is valuable beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover error cases or permission requirements.

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 sentences, no fluff, with the core action upfront and operational details following directly. Every phrase contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances needed to use it safely, including partial updates and clearing. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to describe return values. Minor gaps like validation rules or error handling prevent a perfect score.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description clarifies the global update semantics (omit vs null vs empty string) and specifically explains parent_id and clear_parent. It doesn't explicitly define every parameter like labels or priority, but the provided semantics resolve the most ambiguous aspects.

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 identifies the action as 'Update a task' with a specific verb and resource, and notes non-obvious semantics around omitting vs clearing fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transition_task by focusing on general attribute edits, though it doesn't name explicit alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to modify existing task fields. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like transition_task for status changes, so guidance is left to inference.

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