task_batch_update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond purpose, such as typical field changes, but does not disclose atomicity, partial-failure behavior, or any side effects. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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 zero wasted words. The core action 'Update multiple tasks at once' is front-loaded, and the examples are compact and illustrative. It earns a top score for efficiency and structure.

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 batch update tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case but omits behavioral details like whether the update is atomic, what happens if some IDs are invalid, and how force interacts with the batch operation. The idempotent hint and force's schema description help, but the description alone 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 only 40% (ids and force have descriptions; status, priority, assigned_to do not). The description compensates somewhat by indicating 'changing status' and 'reassigning tasks', which maps to status and assigned_to. It does not mention priority or the nuanced force semantics, though force is already documented in the schema. Partial compensation earns a mid-range score.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update multiple tasks at once.' It clearly differentiates from sibling task_update by emphasizing the batch aspect, and provides concrete examples of use cases (status changes, reassignments). This is unambiguous and immediately disambiguates from the singular update tool.

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 context for when to use the tool: when several tasks need status changes or reassignment. It does not explicitly name task_update as the alternative for single tasks, but the 'multiple tasks at once' phrasing strongly implies the boundary. The guidance is effective though lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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