update_task

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a useful behavioral trait: 'Only non-null values will be updated.' However, it omits what happens on invalid task_id, whether changes are reversible, and what the response contains.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a structured parameter list. The Args block somewhat redundantly repeats schema type info, but there is no wasted prose.

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?

The description covers all parameters and update behavior sufficiently for invocation. Yet, without an output schema or annotations, the lack of any mention of return values or error behavior leaves a gap for an agent that needs to use the result.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining every parameter in plain language and adding the critical rule that only non-null fields are updated, which clarifies the meaning of the default null values in the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Updates an existing task') and enumerates the exact updatable fields. This field list implicitly differentiates it from the sibling update_status, since status is not among the updatable fields.

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?

Clear context is provided: use this tool to modify description, definition of done, deadline, or assignee of an existing task. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like update_status for status changes.

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