Modify existing tasks by updating their title, notes, or moving the task card across the Kanban board status, such as changing it from backlog to done.
Update a task title, notes, anchors, or move its Kanban status (backlog/next/doing/blocked/done).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| anchors | No | ||
| workspace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It discloses the mutable fields and allowed status values, but says nothing about permissions, whether updates are partial, reversibility, side effects of status changes, or what is returned.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently lists the main update targets and the allowed Kanban status values.
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 a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too thin. It should clarify the required id, workspace scoping, and partial-update behavior to be complete enough for reliable invocation.
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 0%, and the description only names some of the six parameters. It mentions title, notes (likely body), anchors, and status, but omits the required id and the workspace parameter; the "notes" wording also does not directly match the schema's "body" field.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Update a task") and enumerates the mutable fields: title, notes, anchors, and Kanban status. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling amem_task_complete despite overlapping with moving a task to "done".
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 implies usage by listing the fields that can be updated and the allowed status values, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. In particular, it does not say when to use this tool versus amem_task_complete for completing a task, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.