Update single task

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what annotations already provide. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, how invalid IDs are handled, or authorization requirements. The openWorldHint and idempotentHint annotations exist, but the description fails to add any extra context about side effects or response behavior.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core action without any filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning a top score for 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?

For a tool that updates a nested task object with no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information about which task fields are updatable, update semantics (patch vs put), and expected response. Sibling patterns suggest _update_one tools share a common pattern, but the description alone leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 50% and the description does not compensate. The only parameter semantics provided is 'by ID', which minimally clarifies the id parameter, but the 'task' object remains vague as 'Task object per Kommo API'. The description does not explain what fields can be updated or how to structure the object, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 'Update a single task by ID' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating it updates exactly one task. The phrase 'single' and 'by ID' distinguishes this from the sibling kommo_tasks_update, which likely handles batch updates. This meets the 5 criterion of specific verb+resource with sibling differentiation.

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 such as kommo_tasks_update or kommo_tasks_create. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. It is a bare statement without usage context.

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