asana_update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states it 'updates' an existing task, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid task IDs), rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('update an existing task's details'), making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation, nested objects) and lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like partial updates. For a tool that modifies tasks with multiple fields, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'due_on' specifies YYYY-MM-DD format, 'assignee' explains 'me' or user ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('update') and resource ('existing task's details'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'asana_create_task' by specifying it updates existing tasks rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update-related tools like 'asana_set_parent_for_task' which also modifies tasks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task ID), compare with similar tools like 'asana_create_subtask' or 'asana_set_parent_for_task', or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for bulk updates). The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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