Update Task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update any field' and does not explain partial-update semantics, replacement behavior, error conditions, permissions, or whether an updated task is returned. The schema covers array replacement semantics, but the description itself adds little behavioral transparency beyond the obvious mutation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, and the second adds practical usage context. Every word 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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must do more than it does. It tells the agent when to use the tool and the schema documents all inputs, but it does not explain what happens when only task_id is provided, whether updates are partial, or what the caller should expect in return. This is adequate for invocation but leaves meaningful gaps.

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 schema already documents every parameter, including enum values and replace-vs-append behavior for arrays. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond saying any field can be updated, which is general and already implied by having optional editable fields.

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 tool updates any field of a task, providing a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like create_task and get_task by the action itself, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or differentiate them, which prevents a 5.

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 concrete usage guidance: use proactively when task status changes, priorities shift, or new information arrives. It does not mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as create_task, but the provided contexts are clear enough for appropriate invocation.

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