agent_update_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update task status' without detailing side effects, authentication requirements (beyond api_key in schema), reversibility, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action ('Update task status') and efficiently enumerates possible states. No unnecessary words; every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a simple status update tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't mention return values, error handling, or the effect of different statuses (e.g., whether completed requires output). More context would help, especially given the large sibling list.

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?

While the schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions, the description adds meaning by mapping status actions (e.g., 'complete with output' links status=completed with the output parameter, 'accept' with status=accepted). This enriches understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 task status' and enumerates the possible status transitions (accept, complete with output, fail, cancel), making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like agent_create_task or agent_get_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 implies usage for status updates but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agent_get_task for reading, agent_create_task for creating). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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