Update Task Metadata

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

Description discloses idempotency (consistent with the idempotentHint annotation) and adds meaningful context: 're-running with identical inputs converges on the same line' and 'Fails if the target line is not a task.' It also explains vault selection precedence. These details go beyond the annotations, which only flag idempotentHint, enriching the behavioral picture without contradiction.

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?

Two short, front-loaded paragraphs. The first paragraph states the core action and identity; the second covers idempotency, failure mode, and vault selection. Every sentence adds essential information, with no redundancy or filler.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and well-patterned date fields, the description covers identity, failure mode, idempotency, and vault selection. The only gap is explicit guidance for less obvious parameters (recurrence format, vaultPath semantics), but the schema patterns and existing schema descriptions partially fill that gap. Overall, sufficient for correct usage.

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 only 25% (priority and lineNumber have descriptions). The description compensates partially by explaining the identity mechanism and partial-update behavior, but it does not clarify the semantics of dueDate, startDate, scheduledDate, recurrence, or vaultPath. With low coverage, the description must carry more parameter detail than it does.

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?

States a specific verb ('update'), resource ('task metadata'), and scope (dates, priority, recurrence) with the crucial qualifier 'without touching the task body text.' It also specifies the identity mechanism (sourceFile + lineNumber), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tasks.create and tasks.toggle.

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?

Provides clear contextual guidance: it operates on the session-active vault, with vaultPath as an override, and instructs to 'pass only the fields you want to change.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., tasks.edit for body text) or state conditions for when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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