Freelo Edit Task

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

Annotations already carry the behavioral profile (readOnlyHint=false confirms mutation, idempotentHint=true confirms safe re-invocation, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the field scope and that the target must be an existing task, which is useful but not rich. No contradiction exists and the description works with the annotations rather than replacing them.

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 sentences with zero filler. The core action is stated first, the field scope second, and the routing exclusion third — exactly the order an agent needs. Every sentence earns its place, including the disclosure of additionalProperties: false being left to the schema where it belongs.

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 fully documented schema fields, a nested object, an output schema, and consistent annotations, the description covers the essential selection and invocation concerns. The 'only include fields to change' patch semantics live in the schema, and return values are covered by the output schema. Minor gaps like error behavior and permission requirements are acceptable at this complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100% — taskId, taskData, and every nested sub-field (name, worker, dueDate, priority) are documented, including format (YYYY-MM-DD) and semantics (higher = more important). The description's field list ('assignment' mapping to worker) merely restates what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates an existing task') and enumerates the exact modifiable fields (name, assignment, due date, priority). It also actively distinguishes itself from the sibling freelo_update_task_description, so an agent can tell these two edit tools apart without inspecting either schema.

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 when to use it (when modifying name, assignment, due date, or priority) and gives one explicit exclusion with a named alternative: 'For description updates, use freelo_update_task_description.' It doesn't enumerate other alternatives, but the main ambiguity for an edit operation is resolved.

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