Update Task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful trait – status is untouched – but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what the call returns. That is a real gap for a mutation tool, though the status guarantee is genuinely useful.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the field list is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat is placed last where it reads as a constraint rather than a footnote.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes and what deliberately does not. It leaves minor gaps around return behavior and required context, but nothing that would cause an agent to call it incorrectly.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the replace-semantics of 'code'. The description's mention of title/summary/files mirrors the schema without adding format or constraint detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (change) plus the resource (Task) and enumerates the mutable fields: title, summary, files. The clause 'Leaves its status alone' implicitly separates it from the status-mutating siblings (complete_task, start_task, drop_task), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 a concrete trigger condition ('when the fix turns out different from the plan') and an implicit exclusion via the status caveat, which routes status changes to start_task/complete_task/drop_task. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternatives or listing preconditions.

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