update_task

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses lease side effects per status (pending releases, completed finishes, blocked retains, in_progress/blocked do not renew) and the optimistic-concurrency requirement. Gaps remain on auth/permission requirements and on what a version conflict does at runtime, but the non-obvious behavioral traits are surfaced.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core lease semantics, with no filler. The telegraphic style ('pending releases, completed finishes') is dense but readable; slight loss from clipped phrasing and the use of two separate sentences to restate lease behavior.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to cover the return contract, and it does not — an agent cannot tell whether the new version needed for the next update comes back in the response. Version-conflict failure behavior is also left implicit, though the lease and summary semantics are well covered.

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 0% across six required params, so the description must compensate. It explains summary ('completion evidence, blockers or a handoff explanation'), ties 'latest version' to expected_version, and gives semantics for three of the four enum statuses, but leaves agent_id, task_id, and project_id completely undefined.

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 names a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('your live claim' on a task), and the status-transition phrasing separates it from claim_task, which acquires a claim rather than modifying one. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'All changes require the latest version' gives a real prerequisite for calling the tool, and 'your live claim' implies a prior claim_task call. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus record_update for progress notes, and no statement of what to do on a stale-version rejection.

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