update_task

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'only allowlisted fields' and 'optionally checking the observed version' provide context for field restrictions and optimistic locking. Annotations already indicate write and destructive nature, but description enriches with field semantics.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured by listing allowlisted fields, but overall efficient and front-loaded with core action.

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 complex schema (6 params, 0% description coverage) and destructiveHint, description covers version checking but lacks detail on field restrictions, error handling, and side effects. Output schema exists, so return values are covered, but overall completeness is average.

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%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'allowlisted fields' but doesn't enumerate which parameters are updatable. The 'expected_updated_at' parameter is hinted but not explained in terms of format or conflict behavior. Agent lacks sufficient detail to use parameters correctly.

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 updates task fields and mentions allowlisting and version checking, distinguishing it from create/get/list/delete siblings. The verb 'Update' and resource 'task' are specific.

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 implies when to use (to update tasks) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or comparison with sibling tools like create_task or confirm_delete_task.

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