taskwarrior_modify

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true (safe to retry), and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds value by specifying that it modifies 'existing' tasks and provides examples of behavioral details like using empty strings to remove values (e.g., due='') and how to handle tags without prefixes. It does not contradict annotations and enriches the context beyond them.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, args/returns sections, and multiple examples. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with multiple attributes), low schema coverage (0%), and presence of an output schema (returns confirmation message), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters with examples, and behavioral details, leaving output specifics to the schema. No gaps are evident for effective agent use.

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 carries full burden. It compensates by listing key parameters (task_id, description, project, priority, due, add_tags) in the description and examples, explaining semantics like 'use empty string to remove' for project and due, and priority values (H, M, L). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 the verb ('Modify') and resource ('an existing task's attributes'), distinguishing it from siblings like taskwarrior_add (create), taskwarrior_delete (remove), or taskwarrior_complete (mark as done). It specifies what can be updated (description, project, priority, due date, or tags), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 explicitly states 'Use this tool to update...' and lists specific attributes, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., taskwarrior_delete for removal, taskwarrior_annotate for adding notes), so it lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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