update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It explicitly discloses automatic state transitions (TODO→DONE and DONE→TODO), timestamp updates, section moves, and preservation of key properties, which are exactly the side effects an agent needs to anticipate.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses a compact numbered list for automatic behaviors. It is dense but efficient; the reference to the format guide avoids inline bloat while still providing a path to needed details.

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 two-parameter update tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, required input shape, preservation rules, and automatic behavior. It lacks explicit failure/error behavior and does not mention what happens when the identifier does not match an existing task, but it is otherwise well-rounded.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by specifying preservation requirements and examples of properties to retain, such as :ID:, :CUSTOM_ID:, and :CREATED:, and by requiring the complete task entry rather than a partial update.

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 a specific action ('Update an existing task') and resource ('task'), and emphasizes replacing with new content. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_task and get_task by focusing on existing entries and full replacement semantics.

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 gives clear operational context: provide the complete new entry, preserve properties, and follow the format guide. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focus on 'existing task' makes the intended use reasonably distinct from creation or retrieval.

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