tasks_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses that status can be 'needsAction' or 'completed' but does not reveal whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens to omitted fields, or any error conditions or side effects.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it a model of conciseness, even though it could have traded some brevity for more semantic depth.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not enumerate the updatable fields beyond status, nor does it explain the default tasklist_id behavior or how the tool handles partial updates. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the overall context is still insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only clarifies the meaning of 'status'; parameters like task_id, due, notes, title, and tasklist_id are entirely undocumented in the description, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a clear resource ('a task'), and this distinguishes it well from sibling tools like tasks_create or tasks_delete. However, it only mentions status as an updatable field, omitting the full scope of updatable properties (title, notes, due), so it is not maximally clear.

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 verb 'Update' implies this tool is for modifying an existing task, providing an implied use case. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like tasks_move or tasks_clear_completed, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusion cases.

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