Update subtask

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only name and resolved state can be changed (an implicit partial-update contract), but says nothing about auth requirements, what happens to omitted fields, or whether renames/resolution are reversible. Modest added value over annotations.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the two mutation modes front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of omitting useful context, but there is no padding or repetition.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only annotation-level safety coverage, the description covers the core semantics but leaves auth/permission needs, precedence when both fields are supplied, and the result of the operation unstated. Adequate minimum but with clear gaps.

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 67%: resolved and subtask_id carry their own descriptions, but name is only typed as a non-empty string. The description compensates partly by naming 'rename' and 'resolved/unresolved' as the two changeable aspects, linking them to the parameters. It adds no format, length, or uniqueness constraints 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 names the specific operations (rename, mark resolved/unresolved) on a specific resource (subtask), so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not explicitly compare itself to siblings like update_task or complete_task, which is its only gap.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., update_task at the parent level, or create_subtask), and no statement of preconditions such as the subtask already existing. The 'and/or' phrasing implies partial updates are allowed but stops short of usage direction.

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