update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important behavior: updates target specific fields, appends Agent Log entries, and validates status transitions. It does not mention error responses, reversibility, or permissions, but the disclosed validation behavior is meaningful beyond a generic update description.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and uses only three sentences. Each sentence adds value: what can be updated, what side effects occur, and when to use the tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main fields, the Agent Log side effect, and important validation constraints. It does not mention the scope or depends_on parameters, though those are fully covered in the input schema. The omission of explicit return/error behavior is a minor gap given schema richness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description mentions several fields but adds little semantic detail beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide; the log append behavior is already reflected in the log_entry parameter 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 states a specific action—'Update a task's status, priority, type, or assignee'—and identifies the resource. It also mentions log appending and workflow progression, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like claim_task or complete_task, so the differentiation is clear but not fully explicit.

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 gives clear context: 'Use this to move tasks through the workflow' and includes an example of valid vs invalid status transitions. It implies the need to claim tasks before completing them, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer claim_task or complete_task over this tool.

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