update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It flags 'WRITE', discloses the side effect (item modified in the human's task app), explains partial-update behavior, and states the return value. It stops short of discussing idempotency or permissions, but the principal behavioral details are covered.

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 short, front-loaded with 'WRITE', and each sentence adds one distinct point: purpose, side effect, prerequisites, return value, and alternative. There is no filler.

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?

With 7 params fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return value. It also covers prerequisites and how to get required fields, so an agent has enough context to act safely.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description still adds cross-field semantics (only provided fields change, omitted fields stay untouched, required IDs come from find/list_projects), which enriches the meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('patches') and clear resource ('existing item') and distinguishes itself from create_task. It explicitly clarifies partial-update semantics, so an agent cannot confuse this with creation or replacement.

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?

It names the alternative (create_task) explicitly for when-to-not-use and tells exactly how to obtain the required parameters ('find' or 'list_projects'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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