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. It only says 'Update an existing task', failing to disclose effects like whether the update is idempotent, permissions required, or error behaviors (e.g., if task_id is invalid). No annotations exist, so transparency is minimal.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but it could be more structured to include context like required fields or usage notes. Suitable conciseness but minimal content.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites. The schema is well-documented but the description lacks broader context needed for a mutation tool in a complex system.

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 100%, with each parameter having a description (e.g., task_id pattern, enum values). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 an existing task in FreeAgent' clearly specifies the verb (Update) and resource (existing task), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like freeagent_update_bill or freeagent_update_project, which are similarly named. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 other update tools or create/delete tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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