nworks_task_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses the critical behavioral requirement of 'User OAuth 인증 필요 (task + user.read scope)'. However, it lacks details on mutation safety, whether unspecified fields are preserved during partial updates, or idempotency characteristics.

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?

Four sentences efficiently cover purpose, usage examples, prerequisites, and authentication requirements without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core action and follows with essential operational context in a logical flow.

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 100% schema coverage and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the prerequisite tool (nworks_task_list) and authentication requirements. It could improve by clarifying partial update behavior (only taskId is required), but provides sufficient context for an update operation.

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%, with all five parameters fully documented in the schema itself (e.g., status enum values, date format for dueDate). The description mentions the taskId source but primarily relies on the comprehensive schema documentation, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 '할 일을 수정하거나 완료 처리합니다' clearly specifies the action (modify/complete) and resource (task). It distinguishes from siblings like nworks_task_create and nworks_task_delete by using specific Korean verbs (수정/완료 처리 versus 생성/삭제) and explicitly references nworks_task_list as the source for the required taskId.

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?

It provides concrete example requests ('할 일 완료 처리해줘', '마감일 변경해줘') indicating when to invoke the tool. It correctly identifies the prerequisite workflow that taskId must be obtained from nworks_task_list first, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this (e.g., versus creating new tasks).

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