study_task_update

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

The description adds two facts beyond the annotations: archiving is reversible (consistent with destructiveHint=false) and that 'done' does not mean the task was submitted to Learn, which disambiguates status semantics. It does not cover partial-update behavior, permission needs, or what an update returns.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The behavioral caveat about 'done' is placed immediately after the core action, so nothing is buried.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering returns, the description is thin. It never explains that omitted fields are presumably left unchanged, what reverting an archive entails, or how notes and estimate interact with updates.

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 four parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It only hints at the meaning of the status value 'done'; notes, estimate_minutes, and the other status values (todo/doing/archived) remain unexplained.

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?

State a specific verb (update/archive) and resource (a local task), and explicitly scopes it to 'local' tasks rather than anything synced to Learn. This distinguishes it reasonably well from study_task_create and study_tasks, though no sibling is named directly.

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 word 'Update' implies it acts on an existing task rather than creating one, and the 'done' caveat warns about a misuse case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no pointer to sibling tools such as study_task_create for new tasks, and no stated prerequisites for updating.

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