update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that only provided fields are changed and that the return value is the updated task or None if not found. This covers key behavior, though it doesn't discuss reversibility, permissions, or how to clear a field by passing null.

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 summary, an Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence provides useful information, and the formatting is scannable. There is no redundancy with the schema because the schema lacks descriptions.

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 (7 params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers all parameters and the main return behavior. However, it does not explain whether passing null clears a field (given the schema's nullable defaults), which is a subtle but relevant usage detail for updating tasks.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, including allowed enums for status and priority, the ISO format requirement for due_date, and the meaning of 'new' for each field. This goes far beyond the schema's bare types.

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 'Update a task' with the specific behavior 'Only provided fields are changed.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_task, list_tasks, and delete_task, which cover different operations.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to modify an existing task) and explicitly notes partial-update semantics. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over add/list/delete.

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