vk_post_tasks_09aa3369648d

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that authentication is required, notes the raw proxy nature, and explains parameter aliasing. However, it omits important details such as whether the update is partial or full replacement, what side effects occur on existing fields, and what the response format looks like. The claim that the body field is 'optional' is also inaccurate because the schema marks it as required, reducing trust.

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 moderately concise and information-dense. It repeats 'Update a task' twice, which is slightly redundant, but every other sentence contributes useful details (e.g., authentication, aliases, body handling). It is structured logically from purpose to special cases to usage mechanics, earning it a high but not perfect score.

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 raw proxy tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains how to call it (body, aliases, auth) but fails to provide context about expected responses, error behavior, or when to use it relative to higher-level sibling tools. It also leaves the body schema unspecified, which is a significant gap. Overall, it is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description introduces a contradiction by calling the body 'optional' while the schema requires it. Although it adds useful notes about top-level fields and camelCase/snake_case aliases, it fails to describe the body structure or expected fields beyond a generic 'task object.' This misleading characterization and lack of substantive param explanation push the score below baseline.

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 'Update a task' as the primary purpose, with a specific resource (tasks/{id}) and verb (update). It also explicitly mentions 'marking it as done,' which narrows scope and distinguishes it from simple creation or deletion. The 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' phrasing additionally signals this is a low-level endpoint, aiding in differentiation from higher-level sibling tools.

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 gives some usage context: it tells users to pass JSON in the body field, that path/query parameters are top-level fields, and directs to individual endpoints for assignee/label updates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vikunja_update_task' or other task-related siblings, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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