update_task

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 explicitly states that `done=true` closes a task and `false` reopens it, and that unspecified fields are preserved. This adds significant context beyond the raw schema. However, it omits details about error handling or the response format, which are minor for a simple 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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('Actualiza una tarea') followed by the essential parameter behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects needed to call it correctly: the `done` toggle, optional fields, and preservation semantics. It does not address potential errors or return values, but given the simplicity of an update operation, this is acceptable and close to complete.

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 does: it explains the exact semantics of `done`, notes that `title` and `description` are optional, and clarifies the behavior of unset fields (preserved). This goes beyond the bare schema, which only lists types and defaults without any descriptive text.

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 opens with 'Actualiza una tarea' (Updates a task), a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the tool's function. It further clarifies the `done` parameter's special closing/reopening semantics, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like `create_task`, `get_task`, or `list_tasks`.

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—use this to modify an existing task—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like `create_task` (for new tasks) or `get_task` (for reading). There is no mention of exclusions or when not to use it.

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