edit_task_description

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the PATCH mechanism, inline image preservation, mode-specific behaviors (including keep_media handling), and the no-op behavior when the result is unchanged. This is rich, safety-relevant context.

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 longer than ideal but every sentence adds necessary detail for a complex tool. It is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, and modes, front-loading the key benefit.

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 6 parameters, two distinct modes, and nuanced image preservation behavior, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and edge cases (no-op), so the agent has sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described.

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 0%, but the description compensates fully. Every parameter is explained: mode with its two values, label default, bullets required for append_work, new_body_html for replace_section, keep_media behavior, and task_id accepting integer or title.

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 verb+resource: 'minimally edit the task description' while preserving inline images. It distinguishes from a full overwrite and explains the inline image preservation benefit, which sets it apart from sibling tools like update_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 provides explicit usage context: use in the doc→task sync flow when applying additional work/content changes. It describes when to use each mode (append_work vs replace_section) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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