task_update

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds that status transitions are automatically logged, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other potential side effects like notifications or validation errors.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, each providing distinct, relevant information. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 13+ parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description lacks guidance on complex fields like source_ref and depends_on, return values, or error handling. It is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 (23%), and the description does not explain individual parameters or their meanings beyond a general instruction to pass only changed fields. It fails to compensate for the lack of 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 clearly states 'Update a task' and instructs to pass only fields to change. It distinguishes the tool from create, get, and list operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from batch update or subtask update.

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 one usage guideline ('Pass only fields to change') but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., task_batch_update, subtask_update) or when not to use it.

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