agent_update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses that every update is visible to the counterparty agent and is validated like a message, that the tool is disabled by default behind an allowlist, that input/output are plaintext and relay-readable, and that it acts as the credential-store identity. These are non-obvious side effects and privacy constraints an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, with consequences (visibility, default-off, plaintext storage, identity) following in tight successive sentences. It is dense but each sentence carries distinct information; no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must do heavy lifting, and it covers data handling, permission gating, and counterparty visibility. Remaining gaps are minor: it does not state what the call returns or whether status transitions are reversible or ordered, which an agent may still want to know.

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% and the schema already documents all four parameters, including the exact status values and the 'requester only' restriction on rating. The description's verbs map loosely onto the status strings and it notes output accompanies completion, but this adds little beyond what the schema states — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (update) and resource (task) and enumerates every state transition the tool performs: accept, start, complete (with output), fail, cancel, and rate. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from agent_create_task, agent_get_task, and agent_list_tasks without opening any schema.

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 supplies a concrete eligibility condition — the tool is refused unless the human owner has allowed the recipient in VOIDLY_MCP_RELAY_ALLOWED_RECIPIENTS — which tells the agent when calls will succeed versus be rejected. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to alternatives (e.g., create vs. update vs. read), so the guidance is contextual but not comparative.

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