task_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a vague notion of 'versioning' and 'deployment state' but never explains what versioning means, whether prior state is retained or overwritten, or what auth is required — leaving the mutation's actual behavior opaque.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but its brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than through efficient front-loading. Reasonably sized, poorly chosen words.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 7 parameters, 5 required, a nested signature object, and 0% schema coverage, and it has no output schema to fall back on. The description does not explain the nested object, the evidence hashes, or what a successful update returns, so it is significantly under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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 must carry parameter meaning, yet it only loosely gestures at 'task state' (status) and 'test signature' (signature). The 7 parameters — including project, summary, next_actions, the defaulted evidence hash array, and the nested signature object — are essentially undocumented.

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 names an action on a task ('version task state') and a secondary behavior ('record test signature'), so an agent can broadly infer it mutates a task record. However, 'Version' is ambiguous jargon — it doesn't state the resource or verb cleanly (update? transition? snapshot?) — and it draws no line against siblings like task_check_duplicate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as task_check_duplicate or project_resume. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context on when a task should be updated.

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