teamstorm_update_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds little beyond stating the modification action. It does not disclose whether fields are partially updated or overwritten, nor the effect of omitting fields. The 'at least one field' requirement implies partial update but is not explicit. It does not contradict annotations, so no penalty; it simply does not enrich the behavioral picture beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, action-first, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the purpose with specifics; the second provides a critical usage condition and a validation rule. No filler or redundancy; it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (1 required), a clear purpose, and an output schema (which covers return values). The description covers the modifiable fields and the mandatory condition for calling. It lacks detail on allowed status values or whether the update is partial vs full, but given the output schema exists and the tool is moderately simple, the description is nearly complete. Minor gap: it does not mention that task_key is the unique identifier or explain error conditions.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It names the three modifiable fields (name, description, status) and states that at least one must be provided, which gives meaning. However, it does not clarify that task_key is the identifier of the existing task (though implied by 'existing TeamStorm task'), nor does it define allowed status values or input formats. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps given zero 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Modify', the resource 'TeamStorm task', and the specific fields (name, description, status). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like teamstorm_get_task (read) and teamstorm_set_task_description (specific to description) by indicating this is the general modification tool. No tautology or ambiguity.

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 includes an explicit condition: 'Do not call this tool unless the user explicitly requested that the TeamStorm task itself be modified.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the conditional warning strongly implies that other tools (like get_task) are for reading or setting a specific field. The 'At least one field must be provided' constraint is also helpful. Slight gap: no mention of when to use teamstorm_set_task_description instead.

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