tasks_edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the return value '{success}' and the specific 'mark it complete' behavior, which provides some extra context, but doesn't go into details like partial updates or error handling.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the return value. Every word is purposeful with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and return value. It doesn't explicitly state that unmentioned fields remain unchanged, but that is typically inferred for edit tools, and the schema's optional fields handle it. A minor gap is not explaining the format of '{success}', but this is acceptable.

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 100%, so all 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'mark it complete' which maps to the 'complete' parameter, but the schema already describes this, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Edit a task or mark it complete', identifying the specific action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tasks_list and tasks_create by focusing on editing existing tasks.

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 through the description's verb ('edit') and the sibling tool names, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not say 'use tasks_create for new tasks'. This makes it clear but not fully explicit.

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