Update tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It adds valuable info about bulk updates and per-item reporting ('Each update is reported individually'). However, it does not disclose whether updates are partial replacements, how errors are handled, or any permission requirements, leaving gaps for a mutating 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 long, immediately states the core action, and each sentence adds value: the first lists what can be updated, the second explains bulk behavior and reporting. No redundant or filler content.

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 moderate complexity (nested update object with multiple fields) and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it clarifies bulk usage and per-item results. It could improve by explaining partial update semantics or return format, but the current level is sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's basic behavior.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It maps some fields via examples (status, assignees, due dates, renames) and explains the 'updates' array for bulk usage. Yet it does not elaborate on nuanced parameters like add_assignees vs remove_assignees, archived, or priority, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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's function: updating existing tasks, with specific examples (status changes, re-assignment, due dates, renames). It distinguishes from sibling create_task by emphasizing 'existing tasks' and from search/get tools by focusing on mutation.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for modifying existing tasks, which implies using create_task for new tasks. It also gives specific usage guidance: 'Pass the whole array for a bulk change.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use the tool, so it falls 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.