Update Task

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (false) and not destructive (false). The description adds that it modifies existing entries, which aligns with annotations. It lists examples of modifiable fields, adding mild value beyond the schema.

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 a single sentence efficiently conveying the tool's purpose. It could be slightly improved by using 'task' instead of 'time entry' for accuracy, but overall it is concise 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?

Given the presence of annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a mutation tool. It does not need to explain return values as the output schema exists.

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%, and the description's mention of 'times, description, or billing status' simply echoes what is already in the schema parameters. No additional semantic nuance is provided beyond the schema.

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 it modifies details of an existing time entry, which aligns with the tool's purpose. However, it uses 'time entry' instead of 'task', which could cause minor confusion. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like task_create or task_delete.

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 an explicit usage condition ('when the user wants to modify details...'), which provides context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like task_add_expense or timer_update, so guidance is limited.

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