update task

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing on top of them. It does not say what changes, whether status transitions are validated, or any side effects of a non-idempotent update.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing given the tool takes two required parameters and performs a mutation.

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 mutation tool with two undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: valid status values, task identification, and update behavior are all unstated.

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 0% and neither parameter has any description in the schema. The description does not explain that uuid identifies the task or what valid status values exist, so the agent gets no semantics beyond the bare property names.

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 states a verb and resource ("Update an existing task"), which is clear enough at a glance, but it never mentions the status field that the tool name and required parameters center on. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like create_task, delete_task, or get_tasks_tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling delete_task or create_task, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an existing task UUID. The reader must infer everything from the name.

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