yg_task_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description partially carries the burden. It discloses partial update behavior and deadline clearing, but lacks details on authentication, side effects, idempotency, or return values.

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, front-loading the main actions and then clarifying the partial update behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers main actions and partial update behavior. However, it omits return format, error handling, and prerequisites, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 low (13%), but the description adds meaning for the deadline parameter (format and clearing) and lists the actions for other parameters. However, it does not describe constraints or allowed values for most parameters.

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 updates a task, listing specific actions (move, assign, deadline, complete, archive, edit title/description). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like yg_task_create (create) and yg_task_get (read).

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 implies usage is for partial updates ('Only provided fields change') and gives a concrete example for clearing deadline. It does not explicitly mention when not to use but is clear in context of sibling tools.

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