Update a task

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds real operational semantics: empty strings clear dates, `completed: true` only ticks the checkbox rather than relocating the task, and the description field is immutable via the API. It does not cover permission requirements or confirm that omitted fields are left untouched.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with scope and then the two highest-value caveats; nothing is padded. The opening field enumeration largely restates the schema's property list, which costs a little density but aids quick scanning.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics and the two surprising constraints an agent would otherwise get wrong. It leaves the response shape and the no-op/permission behavior unstated, which is a modest remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in structured form and the baseline is 3. The description's clearing semantics duplicate what the schema already states for dueDate/startDate, and its added `completed` nuance is behavioral rather than parameter-level.

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 states a precise verb ('Changes fields of a task') and enumerates the exact mutable surface (title, priority, dates, estimate, completion, parent, assignees, tags), so an agent knows this is a field-patch tool and not a creator, mover, or commenter. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings weeek_move_task and weeek_add_comment.

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?

It routes two specific intents to alternatives: description edits must go through a comment, and column changes must go through weeek_move_task. That is concrete when-to-use-other guidance, though it gives no general guidance on prerequisites or when not to update at all.

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