update_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool modifies existing tasks, specifies that 'Only specified fields will be updated' (partial updates), and warns about task name uniqueness issues. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 perfectly structured and concise: three sentences total, each earning its place. The first states the purpose, the second explains parameter combinations, and the third specifies update requirements. No wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 (9 parameters, mutation operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on return values, error handling, and system constraints like permissions or rate limits, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining parameter combinations and constraints: it clarifies the preferred use of taskId, the disambiguation role of listName with taskName, and the requirement for at least one update field. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Modify an existing task's properties.' It specifies the verb ('Modify') and resource ('existing task's properties'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task, delete_task, and update_bulk_tasks by focusing on individual task updates.

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 explicit guidance on when to use specific parameter combinations: '1. Use taskId alone (preferred if you have it)' and '2. Use taskName + optional listName (to disambiguate if multiple tasks have the same name).' It also states prerequisites: 'At least one update field (name, description, status, priority) must be provided.'

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