update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation but says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved, whether changes are reversible, or side effects on related data. Only the field list hints at scope.

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 verb and field list front-loaded. No filler, though the parenthetical is more a recap than load-bearing information.

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, no output schema, and sparse parameter descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits required parameters (board_name, task_id) usage, permission expectations, and the effect of null/partial updates.

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 low at 27%, so the description should compensate. Its parenthetical list recaps several self-evident properties (name, description, color, position) but leaves responsibleUserId, task_id, and the estimate formats unexplained, and adds no syntax detail beyond what names already convey.

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+resource (update a task) and enumerates the updatable fields, which distinguishes it from create_task and delete_task in the sibling list. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling, move_task_to_board.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_task_to_board (which also moves tasks between columns/boards) or set_date. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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