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 and discloses important behavior: partial updates, project_id moving the task, and clear_fields resetting fields. It does not cover side effects like permissions or reversibility, but the key update semantics are transparent.

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 tight sentences deliver the core semantics first, then special-case behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 the detailed per-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the high-level behavior an agent needs: partial update, move semantics, and clearing. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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 crucial meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that omitted parameters are untouched and that null/clear operations go through clear_fields, resolving the ambiguity in nullable parameters.

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 states the specific operation: 'Partially update a task' and adds the defining nuance that omitted fields are left untouched. This clearly distinguishes it from full-replacement updates and from sibling tools like create_task and remove_task.

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?

It gives clear usage context: use this for partial updates, and use clear_fields when the goal is to empty a field rather than change it. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the partial-update framing is enough to route the agent correctly.

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