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

With annotations declaring destructiveHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Only provided fields change' clarifies partial-update semantics, and the REST method PATCH is disclosed. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes the essential REST endpoint. 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 7-parameter update tool with 100% schema coverage and a destructiveHint annotation, the description is adequately complete. It covers the core action, partial-update behavior, and API method. It does not mention return value, but no output schema exists and this is typical for an update tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the key semantic that only provided fields change, which clarifies that omitted parameters are left untouched. This is useful parameter-level insight beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

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 'Update' and the resource 'existing task', making it distinct from sibling tools like create, get, or list tasks. It also specifies the REST endpoint (PATCH /rest/tasks/{id}), which further anchors its purpose.

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 'Update fields on an existing task' provides clear context for when to use this tool (to modify an existing task). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the distinction from create/get/list tools is implicit and easy to infer.

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