Update Workflow Task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether fields are replaced or merged, whether omitted attributes are cleared, what permissions/integration scope are required when a task_type targets an external system, or that the nested `data.id` is ignored. It does not contradict the 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?

One sentence, front-loaded, with no filler — but for a tool whose payload contains dozens of discriminated task types, this is under-specification rather than conciseness.

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?

Given the extremely complex nested schema with many anyOf task_type variants, an output schema that covers return values, and an open-world external-integration effect, the description should at minimum explain the `data.type` + `data.attributes` envelope and the polymorphic task payload. None of that is present, so the agent must reverse-engineer the contract from the schema.

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 only 50% at the top level, and the `data` envelope — the heart of this tool, with its `type`/`attributes`/`task_type` polymorphism — is undocumented in the description. "By id" restates what the `id` schema description already says and provides no guidance on `task_type` variants, `position`, `enabled`, or `skip_on_failure`.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Update a specific workflow task by id"'), so the agent knows this mutates an existing workflow task rather than listing or creating one. It does not differentiate from siblings such as get_workflow_task, create_workflow_task, or update_playbook_task, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the name alone.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_workflow_task/create_workflow_task, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only selection signal is the word "Update" in the name.

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