Update task

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 the partial-update guarantee, which is meaningful behavioral context, but says nothing about permissions, whether moving between task lists has side effects, or what the response contains.

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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the mutation semantics second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract (partial update of an existing task). It is a bit thin on the notable side effects of task_list_id and assigned_user_id, but the schema descriptions carry those details.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every field including enum semantics for status and the YYYY-MM-DD constraint for due_on. The description adds only the general rule that unlisted fields remain untouched, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Update fields on an existing Redbooth task"), distinguishing it from create_task and completing tools like complete_task by naming the domain entity. It does not explicitly contrast with complete_task or update_subtask, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 phrase "Only the provided fields are changed" implies a partial-update usage pattern, which is a useful hint. However, it never states when to use this tool versus complete_task (which presumably changes status) or update_subtask, and offers no prerequisites or exclusions.

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