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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns a summary by default and supports a verbose mode for full data, and that tags must reference existing IDs within the same project. It does not cover partial update semantics or null-field behavior, but the disclosed traits are meaningful and go beyond the schema.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Update an existing task') and follows with the most critical constraint and output behavior. Every clause earns its place; no superfluous information.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, a critical parameter constraint, and output behavior. However, it leaves gaps regarding partial update behavior, the contents of the summary, null-field semantics, and error conditions, making it incomplete for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 description adds semantic value for two parameters: 'tags' (must be existing IDs from the same project) and 'verbose' (controls output detail). However, it does not explain the update semantics for other fields such as dueDate or assignee, which allow null, nor does it clarify whether unspecified fields are left unchanged. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing task.' It is unambiguous and naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, and batch_update_tasks.

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 a key usage constraint—'tags must be existing tag IDs from the same project'—and explains the verbose option, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over batch_update_tasks or other alternatives. The guidance is implied by the tool's name and the existence of sibling tools, not explicitly articulated.

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