yg_task_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that only provided fields change and that deadline=null clears the deadline, and includes HTML formatting for description. However, it lacks details on permissions, idempotency, side effects, or what happens to unprovided fields.

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 concise, with two well-structured sentences that front-load the main purpose and then provide key usage notes. 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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the main purpose and parameter behavior for some fields, but is missing details on return values, error conditions, and comprehensive usage context for a mutation tool with 8 parameters.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it lists updatable fields, clarifies deadline=null clears it, and gives the HTML formatting specifics for description. However, not all 8 parameters are explained (e.g., id, title, archived).

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 it updates a task and enumerates the specific fields that can be changed (move, assign, deadline, complete, archive, edit title/description). It distinguishes from sibling tools like yg_task_create (create) and yg_task_get (read) by its action and scope.

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 limited usage guidance: 'Only provided fields change' and 'Pass deadline=null to clear.' It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, conflicts, or error handling.

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