update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'modifica' and includes '[mutation]' indicating a state change, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, permissions required, or whether the update is partial or full. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single short sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and key modifiable fields. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It only covers a subset of parameters, omitting important context about several parameters (e.g., agent_id, phone, pagination fields). The presence of list-like parameters in an update tool schema is not addressed, and no return value or side effects are described.

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 high (91%), so the baseline is 3. The description lists the primary updatable fields in natural language, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of extra parameters like limit, offset, or include_completed, which seem unrelated to an update operation.

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 identifies the action (update task) and lists the modifiable fields (status, text, priority, deadline, assignment). It distinguishes the tool from create_task and delete_task by specifying it modifies existing tasks. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools like update_agent, but the resource name serves as differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparisons to similar tools like create_task. The usage context is only implied.

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