vk_put_tasks_0c5b4fde0ccc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well by disclosing that copying includes labels, assignees, attachments, and reminders, that it creates a 'copied from' relation, and that authentication is required. It also explains the body parameter behavior and parameter aliases, providing meaningful non-obvious details.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence serving a purpose: purpose, endpoint, behavior, relation, parameter handling, aliases, and auth. No redundant or filler content is present.

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 covers the essential context: what the tool does, what parameters to pass, how they should be structured, and that authentication is required. It omits return-value details, but that is not critical given the proxy nature and absence of an output schema.

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?

Although the schema already describes taskID and body, the description adds clarity by stating the body is optional and that path/query parameters are top-level fields. It also explicitly mentions camelCase and snake_case aliases, which is not evident from the schema alone, improving the agent's ability to construct valid calls.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Duplicate a task.' It then specifies the raw Vikunja endpoint, what gets copied, and the created relation, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from sibling task operations.

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 implies its use case via the duplicate endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The 'Raw Vikunja REST proxy' context hints at low-level usage, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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