Teamwork: update task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the operation is an update but does not disclose side effects such as whether unspecified fields are preserved, that tagIds and assigneeUserIds replace existing ones, or what the response contains. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and mentions a key option. No wasted words.

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 simple update tool with 8 parameters, the description is adequate but omits important behavioral context like replacement semantics and return values. It does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 75%, so most parameters already have clear meanings. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, e.g., it does not emphasize replacement semantics for arrays.

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 action ('Update fields of an existing task') and the resource (task), plus a specific use case (mark complete with complete=true). It naturally distinguishes from siblings like create_task or get_task.

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 implies usage for existing tasks and highlights a special case (completion), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Given the context, the intended use is obvious.

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