task_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It partially reveals that notes get a timestamp and hours_spent adds to cumulative actual_hours, but omits whether updates are destructive, if status values are restricted, or if any other side effects occur.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the context 'Project Brain'. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with line breaks for clarity.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, and with only 50% parameter coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not cover return values, error cases, or prerequisites, making it inadequate for a mutation tool in a complex system.

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 50%, with status and hours_spent having basic descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the note parameter gets a timestamp appended, which is not in the schema. However, the required 'id' parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 updates task status, note (with timestamp appended), and cumulative actual hours. The verb 'update' combined with specific resources (status, note, hours) provides a precise purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like task_break_down.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context for usage, such as prerequisites or conditions for updating, which is needed given the variety of sibling tools.

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