edit_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it excels: it discloses partial update behavior, tag set replacement, the use of clear flags for dates, null for estimatedMinutes, and repetition rule set/clear semantics. This goes well beyond what the schema names alone would convey. No contradictory or missing critical behavioral traits for an edit operation.

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?

Every sentence adds necessary operational detail: main purpose, partial update rule, tag replacement, date clearing, estimatedMinutes null, repetition set/clear. No filler, appropriately front-loaded. The length is justified by the complexity of the edit semantics.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the non-obvious behaviors comprehensively. It omits some context like whether the task ID must exist, error behavior, or return value, but these are secondary to correct invocation. The nested repetitionRule object is explained sufficiently for an agent to construct valid calls.

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 only 29%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the nuanced behavior of tagIds (replaces full set), clearDueDate/clearDeferDate/clearPlannedDate, null for estimatedMinutes, and repetitionRule structure. However, it does not explicitly mention name, note, dueDate, flagged, deferDate, or plannedDate behavior, though those are fairly self-explanatory. Overall it compensates well for the low schema coverage.

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?

States the specific action 'Edit an existing task by its stable ID', clearly identifying the resource (task) and operation (edit). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_task, delete_task, complete_task, and get_task. The inclusion of 'stable ID' adds precision about how the task is identified.

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?

Clearly implies use when modifying fields of an existing task, and the partial-update semantics tell the agent what to expect. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the sibling list and opening phrase make the intended context clear. A minor gap is the absence of an explicit 'use create_task for new tasks' style exclusion.

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