tasks_upsert

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 usefully describes the return value ('Returns the task id') and provides important context about the flexible task shape and valid states. However, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is an idempotent operation, what happens with partial updates, authentication requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. The disclosure is helpful but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose and return value, followed by essential details about the task shape and states. Every sentence earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately for quick comprehension.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), nested objects, and an output schema, the description provides a reasonable baseline. The output schema likely documents the return structure, so the description's focus on the task id is sufficient. However, for a flexible upsert operation with undocumented parameters, more guidance on parameter usage and behavioral expectations would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description fails to compensate for this gap. While it mentions the 'task' parameter shape and states, it doesn't explain the 'project_root' parameter at all or provide details about the 'task' object structure beyond a basic outline. The description adds some value about task fields but leaves significant parameter semantics undocumented.

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 verb ('Create or update') and resource ('a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'tasks_list' (read-only) and 'tasks_transition' (state changes only), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The mention of returning 'the task id' adds useful outcome information.

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 usage context through 'Create or update a task' and mentions the flexible task shape, suggesting this is the primary tool for task creation/modification. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'tasks_autogen_from_entities' or 'tasks_transition', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is functional but lacks comparative clarity.

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