Update task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the highest-risk behaviors: partial-update semantics (unspecified fields are preserved) and the destructive replace semantics of labelIds. It does not cover permissions, reversibility, error behavior, or the response shape, but the mutation-critical traits are front-loaded and unambiguous.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core semantic (only passed fields change) is placed first. Each remaining sentence addresses a distinct footgun: null clearing, label replacement, sibling routing.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the behaviors most likely to cause a wrong call. What is missing is error/permission behavior and what the call returns, which matters more here than for a simple read tool.

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 45%, with done, title, and description carrying no inline docs at all. The description compensates meaningfully by explaining the null-clears-a-date convention and that labelIds replaces the whole label set, but it adds nothing about done/title/description semantics beyond their names.

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 a specific verb (update) and resource (existing task) with the scope qualifier 'fields of an existing task', and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling complete_task. An agent can route between update_task and complete_task without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: only passed fields change, pass null to clear a date, labelIds replaces rather than appends, and directs to complete_task for the mark-done-only case. The alternative and the conditions that select it are named outright.

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