tasks_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing task' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether the update is idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., triggering notifications), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update'), making it easy to scan. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more guidance on what the tool does, how to use it, and what to expect, but it falls short.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters beyond the generic 'update' action. It doesn't explain what 'taskId' is, what 'properties' contains, or the meaning of fields like 'hs_task_priority' or 'hs_task_status'. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 'Update an existing task' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('task'), which provides a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'tasks_batch_update' or other update tools in the server, nor does it specify what aspects of a task can be updated beyond the generic term. This makes the purpose somewhat vague in the broader context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a taskId), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new tasks, which would require 'tasks_create'), or how it differs from batch operations like 'tasks_batch_update'. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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