update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It adds useful context by clarifying that title, notes, status, and due are new values, listing the allowed status values, and noting the due date format. However, it does not disclose whether updates are partial/merge vs full replacement, the authorization requirements, or error behavior for invalid task IDs.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, placing each parameter on its own line with a concise explanation. There is no redundant or filler text; every sentence contributes useful information.

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 7-parameter update tool with no annotations, the description covers all parameters, the return value, and the action clearly. It lacks explicit usage guidance and edge-case/error behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 properties have zero descriptions, but the description documents every parameter with type, optionality, and format details ('New due date in RFC 3339 format', 'needsAction' or 'completed'). It fully compensates for the schema's lack of semantic information, making parameter usage unambiguous.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' with the clear resource 'an existing task', making the tool's function immediately obvious. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like update_task_list, update_drive_file, and create_task by naming the exact entity being modified.

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 when to use it (for modifying an existing task) and even hints through optional parameters that not all fields need updating. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools such as create_task, move_task, or delete_task, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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