update_task

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

The description discloses nuanced behaviors beyond the annotations: partial updates (only provided fields are changed), the no-op effect of setting OPEN on an already-open task, the inability to clear ownerId back to null, the atomic swap of parent references, and the unique orphaning capability for tasks. It also notes that completed tasks remain editable. This is comprehensive behavioral context.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with the primary action and then systematically covering each special case. While longer than minimal, every sentence adds necessary detail for a complex tool with 10 parameters. A slight trim could improve conciseness, but it remains efficient.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, mutex constraints, state-dependent behavior), the description covers all essential aspects: update semantics, status handling, parent references, owner limitations, and post-update behavior. No output schema exists, so return values aren't expected. The description is fully adequate for correct agent use.

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 70% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning to parameters. It elaborates on parent field XOR semantics, the nullability and orphaning details, and the limitation on ownerId. It also clarifies the enum values for status and the rejection of PENDING. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 starts with 'Update fields on an existing task', clearly stating the verb and resource. It lists the specific fields that can be updated, distinguishing it from sibling tools like `complete_task` and `delete_task`. The purpose is unambiguous and precise.

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 explicitly advises to 'prefer the dedicated complete_task tool' for marking a task done, explaining why (idempotent, semantically clearer). It also warns that setting status=PENDING is rejected, and clarifies the XOR constraint on parent references. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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