update_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals a backend constraint (no flat status enum) and dependency on list_task_statuses, but does not disclose partial update semantics, error behavior, or how names in the example ('Alice') map to assigned_to_id UUIDs. The example could mislead the agent into passing a name string.

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?

Two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value.

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?

A 22-param mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage. The description covers status handling but omits essential behavioral context such as whether updates are partial, what response is returned, and error handling. The example may be insufficient for resolving named entities to UUIDs.

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 coverage is only 36%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for is_completed and status_id, and references list_task_statuses for valid values. However, the majority of the 22 parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, and the example does not clarify type conversions for assigned_to_id.

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?

Clearly states 'Update fields on an existing task' with a specific verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from completion toggling by explaining is_completed and status_id, and references list_task_statuses for custom statuses, differentiating from siblings like complete_task and snooze_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?

Provides clear guidance on using is_completed for completion and status_id for custom statuses, including the backend limitation of no flat status enum. Includes an example that demonstrates intent. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like complete_task or snooze_task.

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