taskops_update

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burdens and it does provide balance: it says what statuses preconditions exist (done needs a commit or no_code, released/dropped require a note) and that a released note is shown verbatim to the next worker. Where it falls short is on the bigger side effects: it never states whether changes are permanent, whether they can be undone, or what the mutation notices to the board.

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 construct, frontloaded with the core mutation point and each clause serves a distinct purpose — status transitions, field rewrites, and the cross-reference to taskops_comment — no filler. It loses a half-point because the long comma-separated gut of status → field mutations is more dense and harder to parse than a short list or bullets, but ever sentence earns its place.

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 19-parameter write tool without annotations or an output schema, the description covers the most common modes but silently omiss some entire axes: card moves via milestone (tool), multi-project routing via repo_path, the all-important actor claim for sub-agents, along with resources-maintain fields like files and union_files. The schema patches most of these gaps with rich parameter descriptions, but a reader of the description along the surface offeature-uncovering would need to open every field to find them.

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 already documents all 19 parameters with clear semantic descriptions, so the bar is at baseline-3. The description reinforces status conditions (e.g. done needs a commit, released needs a note) but those largely duplicate the schema's restat and note descriptions rather than adding new parameter-level meanIng. It provides adequate, not exceptional, additive value.

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 leads with 'Change the CARD' — a specific verb and a clear resource — and then enumerates the concrete mutations: close, hand in for review, hand back, drop, retitle, rewrite spec/criteria, re-prioritize, and declare a dependency. It also distinguishes itself from at least one sibling by routing trivial messaging to taskops_comment, so the agent can visibly tell the tools apart.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: it states welkwhat operations are supported and attaches conditions (done needs a command or no_code=true, review-on-a-card-that-requires-imb, released needs a not, dropped needs a reason). It explicitly says 'To say something: taskops_comment,' which is an honest exclusion, but it does not disambiguate among the other mutation siblings like taskopsinate, taskops_review, or taskops_assign, so it falls short of a full decision-guide.

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