update-task-details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the 'Auto-fetches ETag' behavior, which is useful context beyond basic update functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, using just two phrases that efficiently convey purpose and key behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or unnecessary information, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the core purpose and ETag behavior but misses details like response format, error conditions, or side effects. For a 2-parameter update tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement in contextual richness.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('taskId' and 'description'). The description adds minimal value by hinting at GitHub URL support in descriptions, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema implies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Update') and resource ('task description'), specifying it's for updating task descriptions with GitHub links. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-task' (likely general update) and 'get-task-details' (read-only), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'update-task' which might handle other fields.

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 context ('use for GitHub links'), suggesting this tool is specialized for descriptions with GitHub URLs. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. 'update-task' or other alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity about its specific role.

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