update_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Update tasks' which implies a mutation operation, but it fails to describe critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if multiple tasks are updated. The description adds minimal context beyond the name, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 brief with two sentences, making it efficient and front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by explicitly separating identification from update capabilities. While concise, it risks under-specification given the tool's complexity, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 the complexity of the tool with 1 parameter (an array of objects with multiple sub-properties), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings beyond identification, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for a mutation tool with rich input options.

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 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema, and the description only addresses identification ('task_id' or 'task_name') without explaining the 'items' array structure or the many other parameters like 'content', 'priority', or 'due_date'. This leaves most parameters unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage, providing insufficient semantic context for effective use.

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 'Update tasks in Todoist' which provides a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('tasks in Todoist'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_projects' or 'update_sections' beyond the resource type, nor does it specify what aspects of tasks can be updated beyond the identification method mentioned.

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 minimal guidance by stating 'Either 'task_id' or the 'task_name' to identify the target,' which hints at how to use the tool for identification but offers no broader context. It doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_tasks' or 'delete_tasks,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond basic identification.

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