Update fields on a task record (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
Update fields on a task record (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | Allowed fields: short_description, description, state, priority, assigned_to, assignment_group, work_notes, comments, close_notes, due_date, active | |
| sys_id | Yes | System ID of the task |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.15.1Input schema / properties / fields / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / fields / descriptionPrevious value: -"Key-value pairs to update"New value: +"Allowed fields: short_description, description, state, priority, assigned_to, assignment_group, work_notes, comments, close_notes, due_date, active"Input schema / properties / fields / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "active": {},
+ "assigned_to": {},
+ "assignment_group": {},
+ "close_notes": {},
+ "comments": {},
+ "description": {},
+ "due_date": {},
+ "priority": {},
+ "short_description": {},
+ "state": {},
+ "work_notes": {}
+}v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of context not in annotations — the WRITE_ENABLED=true prerequisite — but says nothing about partial updates, validation failures, or how existing fields not listed are treated.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite in parentheses. It is tight but borders on under-specified for a mutation tool with a nested payload.
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?
Not a 5? Reconsider: with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and the WRITE_ENABLED gate disclosed, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Return values are not needed since no output schema exists, and the remaining gap (task-type differentiation) is minor.
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%: the nested 'fields' object enumerates all eleven allowed keys and sys_id is documented. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or value guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Update fields on a task record'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. However, it does not differentiate from sibling mutation tools such as update_scrum_task, complete_task, or update_problem, leaving the task-vs-scrum-task boundary implicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like complete_task or update_scrum_task. The only contextual hint is the WRITE_ENABLED prerequisite, which is an operational gate rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.