vikunja_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 delivers: it discloses the read-then-merge implementation, the default partial-update behavior, and the full-replacement behavior when _replace is true. This goes far beyond the schema by explaining what happens to unspecified fields and how the server processes the request.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place. It introduces the default behavior, then the escape hatch, without redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately addresses the key complexity: partial updates vs full replacement. It covers the essential behavioral context needed for correct invocation, and the schema covers individual parameter details, so nothing critical 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 value by explaining the semantic meaning of the parameters collectively: without _replace, unspecified fields keep their current values; with _replace, they reset to defaults. This is not evident from the schema alone and clarifies how all optional parameters behave.

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 starts with 'Update an existing task with PATCH-style semantics,' which clearly states the verb (update), the resource (existing task), and the crucial behavioral nuance (PATCH-style). It distinguishes itself from create/delete siblings by focusing on modifying an existing task, and the resource is unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for updating existing tasks and explains the default partial-update behavior versus the _replace opt-out. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context of updating an existing task is implicit and the _replace guidance provides practical usage direction.

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