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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already indicates mutation, and the description adds the important behavioral trait that only passed fields are changed, which is beyond the annotation. It also explicitly labels the operation as 'WRITE' and provides the REST method, giving useful context beyond the structured data.

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, front-loaded with 'WRITE:' and the core action, and each sentence conveys essential information (partial update behavior and REST endpoint). There is no filler, making it appropriately concise.

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?

With 10 parameters fully described in the schema and a destructive hint annotation, the description provides the necessary high-level context, including partial update behavior and the endpoint. It does not need to cover return values given the absence of an output schema, so it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema covers all 10 parameters with descriptions at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to elaborate. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, thus the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb ('update') and resource ('existing task'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like clickup_create_task by specifying it modifies an existing task. Mentioning the REST endpoint adds additional precision.

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 (when you need to modify an existing task) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create_task or state when not to use. It provides a useful hint about partial updates, but lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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