Change a Google Task's title, notes, or due date by passing only the fields to edit; use YYYY-MM-DD for due dates and an empty string to clear them.
Change a task's title, notes or due date (YYYY-MM-DD; empty string clears it). Only fields that are passed are changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| due | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| task_id | Yes | ||
| tasklist | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides essential non-structural information: the required date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and the functional behavior of passing an empty string to clear a field. This detail is critical.
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 definition is exceptionally concise, front-loading the core functionality in the first sentence and clearly stating the crucial constraint of partial updating in the second. There is no wasted language.
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?
The description provides complete context regarding the constraints and expected input behavior, which is vital given the lack of formal annotations. The combination of the schema and the description provides everything needed for correct invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It successfully adds meaning to the primary modification parameters by specifying data types and the semantic purpose of 'null' values (to clear the field), significantly helping the agent.
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 identifies the resource ('a task') and the action ('change'), explicitly listing the fields affected (title, notes, due date). While it doesn't name a sibling tool it isn't, the operation is distinct from siblings like 'complete_task'.
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 the crucial operational guideline that only passed fields are changed, which governs usage. However, it lacks explicit high-level guidance on when to use this specific update tool versus other potential alternatives or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.