Update tasks

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds the requirement that each object include id and the behavior that is_completed=true completes a task. However, it does not disclose whether unmentioned fields are preserved or how partial failures are handled, so it adds only limited behavioral context.

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 concise: two short sentences that state the purpose and the key field requirement, with no filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure front-loads the core action.

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 open object schema, no output schema, and only moderate annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to state the response format, what happens for missing/invalid ids, or how to update other fields beyond is_completed. An agent would likely need to consult API docs to use this tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains that each task object must include id and gives the is_completed example, but it does not enumerate other updatable fields or clarify that arbitrary fields may be included. This is minimal compensation for the open 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 clearly states 'Update one or more tasks,' giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from the singular sibling kommo_tasks_update_one through the 'one or more' phrasing, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or clarify overlap.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kommo_tasks_update_one or kommo_tasks_create. There is no mention of batch update scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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