Update task (batched)

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

Description adds that non-null fields are batched into a single journal entry, implying atomicity. Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive. No contradictions; warning about double-calling adds useful context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and batched behavior. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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 simple mutation tool with annotations and schema, the description covers key usage constraints and the batched nature. No output schema, but the return is likely standard. Completeness is high for the complexity level.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the batched nature. The schema itself provides descriptions for description, status, comment, and enum for priority, so the description does not add meaningful extra meaning.

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 tool applies 'ONE batched change to a task' and lists specific use cases (starting, finishing, fixing title/priority). It distinguishes itself from siblings like task.create and task.get by focusing on updates.

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 provides explicit 'use for' scenarios and a prohibition ('Do NOT call twice in a row for the same task'). However, it does not name alternative tools for related operations (e.g., task.assign for assignments).

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