nworks_task_update

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive operation. The description additionally discloses an OAuth requirement with the exact scope ('task + user.read'), which is valuable behavioral context not present in the annotations or schema. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact: it states the operation, gives usage examples, notes the ID source, and lists the auth requirement. Every clause contributes necessary information, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and usage examples, the agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly: what it does, when to use it, how to get taskId, and what auth is required. The only notable omission is return-value behavior after an update, but no output schema exists and the core calling requirements are covered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic mapping between user intents and parameters, such as '완료 처리' implying status=done and '마감일 변경' implying dueDate. It also reinforces that taskId comes from nworks_task_list.

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 operation: '할 일을 수정하거나 완료 처리합니다' (modify or complete a task), with concrete example requests. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like nworks_task_create or nworks_task_delete, but the 'update' verb and examples make the intended scope clear.

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 gives explicit usage context by mapping natural-language requests ('할 일 완료 처리해줘', '마감일 변경해줘') to this tool and tells the agent where to find taskId (nworks_task_list). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing, so it stops short of a 5.

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