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 disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. It does not mention potential side effects, constraints like required fields or allowed status transitions, whether the update is partial or full, or what is returned. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 the verb front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The schema is detailed and there is no output schema, so the description's minimalism is partly acceptable. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats (e.g., when outcome should be used, how assignment interacts with other fields), making it incomplete for an agent trying to select the right tool among many task-related siblings.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description's mention of status, assignment, and outcome does loosely map to the main fields.

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 the action ('Update') and identifies the resource ('task') plus the specific mutable fields ('status, assignment, or outcome'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks or create_task, and from the narrower assign_task, since it covers more than assignment.

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 implies usage on existing tasks but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over assign_task or create_task. There are no exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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