task_update

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: completing a task with unfinished subtasks is refused unless force is set. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate a blocking condition without contradicting the structured metadata.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. 'Update a task' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the partial-update instruction and the subtask-force warning are each essential and earn their place. It is concise with minimal waste.

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 tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, this description is notably incomplete. It captures the key update behavior and one refusal rule, but it does not explain return values, error behaviors, prerequisites such as needing an existing task id, or how this relates to sibling update tools. The agent would need to infer or discover important context elsewhere.

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 29%, and the tool description does not compensate for the many undocumented parameters. The phrase 'pass only fields to change' adds useful partial-update semantics, but it does not clarify fields like due_date format, assigned_to semantics, status transitions, or sort_order behavior. The description leans on mostly self-explanatory parameter names rather than providing needed meaning.

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 ('Update a task') and adds the partial-update nuance 'pass only fields to change.' It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like task_batch_update or task_create, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 for updating a single task and changing only certain fields, but it never states when to prefer this over task_create, task_batch_update, or subtask_update. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, so the agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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