update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions changing fields but does not describe side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise with two sentences: the first lists capabilities, the second provides a usage hint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 7 parameters with moderate schema coverage, the description is decent but incomplete. It implies partial updates but does not explain return values, error handling, or confirm that the behavior matches the implication.

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?

The schema description coverage is 43%, with 3 of 7 parameters having descriptions. The description groups parameters by action (e.g., 'reschedule (dueDate)') but does not individually elaborate on all parameters like 'title' or 'description'. It adds some context but does not fully compensate for the missing 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 the tool's purpose: 'Change fields on an existing task' and lists specific actions like reschedule, reprioritize, re-title, recategorize, and relink. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_task, delete_task, and complete_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?

The description advises to 'Only include what changes' and to 'Use list_tasks to get the taskId', providing clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives for marking a task complete.

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