Update task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers none of it: it does not say whether the body replaces or merges existing fields, what permissions are required, whether the update is reversible, or what happens on a partial payload. For a mutation tool with a free-form nested body, this is a severe gap.

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 single sentence is short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded scope, no key details, and nothing that earns the sentence its place beyond echoing the title.

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?

A mutation tool with an opaque free-form nested body, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation requires far more context than one tautological sentence. An agent cannot call this correctly without guessing at the body shape.

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 0% across 2 parameters. The 'body' parameter is an untyped object with additionalProperties: {} and no documented keys, so neither the schema nor the description tells the agent what can be updated. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever.

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 restates the tool name and title verbatim ('Update a task') without stating what fields are updatable, what kind of task is targeted, or how it differs from the sibling update_request_task, update_change, or update_user tools. It is a tautology rather than a specification.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. The sibling list contains update_request_task, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool, and nothing in the description disambiguates them.

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