update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: only the passed arguments are mutated (patch semantics, not replace), and a full-access token is required. It omits anything about the destructive 'clear' path, reversibility, or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed immediately by the two constraints that matter most. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padding.

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 20-parameter mutation tool, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the overview plus patch semantics and auth needs. The main residual gap is that destructive behaviors (clearing dates/notes via 'clear') are not flagged in the description, though the schema covers them.

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 65%, and the description adds a useful conceptual mapping (rename→title, move→parent, relabel→labels, schedule→dates, deadlines→due_date, estimate→estimate_minutes, note→note). However it adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already documents for those fields, so it only marginally compensates for the uncovered parameters (frog, backburner, add/remove_labels, review_date).

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 (Edit) plus the resource (task or project) and enumerates the editable facets: rename, move, relabel, (re)schedule, deadlines, estimate, note. An agent can distinguish this from create_task, mark_done, and create_project. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from update_subtasks, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it's the tool for modifying an existing task or project. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to siblings such as update_subtasks for child items or mark_done for completion. The partial-update rule and token requirement give some operational context but not selection criteria.

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