propose_task_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds crucial context: the tool does NOT make changes, requires user approval via a token, and lists permissible fields. This exceeds what annotations convey.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences cover the entire functionality, usage flow, and constraints without superfluous 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, nested object), the description fully equips an agent to understand when and how to use it, what it doesn't do, and how it relates to siblings. Output schema exists for return 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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by listing allowed change fields (archived, assigned, etc.) and explaining the purpose of the token. However, the 'changes' object structure remains vaguely defined as additionalProperties, not detailing value types.

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 clearly states the tool stages an update and provides an approval token, explicitly noting it does NOT change anything. It lists allowed fields and clarifies deletion is unsupported, distinguishing it from sibling apply_approved_action.

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 provides explicit guidance: show preview to user, then call apply_approved_action with token after approval. It also lists allowed field modifications and states that task deletion is not supported, leaving no ambiguity.

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