google_tasks_update_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes that at least one editable field is required, but omits critical behaviors such as whether the task must exist, what happens if the task is not found, any authentication requirements, or the nature of the response (mutation implied but no output schema). This is insufficient 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 two sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately states the essential constraint. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value, error states, or the role of tasklistId. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool confidently, especially compared to sibling tools with richer descriptions.

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 the description must compensate. It names three editable parameters (title, notes, due), adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain the format of 'due' (date-time), the max lengths, or the purpose of 'taskId' and 'tasklistId' (especially the default @default). The compensation is partial, warranting a middle score.

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 action ('Update a task') and identifies the specific editable fields ('title, notes, or due date'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or set completion. The requirement 'At least one editable field is required' further clarifies the tool's purpose without ambiguity.

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 use when modifying an existing task's title, notes, or due date, but it does not explicitly guide when not to use this tool (e.g., for updating completion status, use set_task_completion instead). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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