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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds value beyond that: the 100-task cap, the single-board scope, and notably that archiving repeating tasks creates their next occurrence — a non-obvious side effect not captured by annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that covers scope, actions, and the key side effect. Efficient, though cramming the repeating-task behavior into a parenthetical slightly buries it.

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?

Given a 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, the action-to-parameter mapping, and an important side effect. It omits error/permission behavior and what happens to individual task results, but is largely complete for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 50%; listId and labelId have schema descriptions, and the enum for action is machine-readable. The description ties each action to its parameter via examples, but adds no format/syntax detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource: acts on up to 100 tasks of one board at once, enumerating the three actions (move, add_label, archive). The 'multi-select in the app' analogy and the batch scope clearly distinguish it from single-task siblings like move_task, set_task_labels, and archive_task.

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 when to use it (batch operations on many tasks at once) but never explicitly contrasts it with the single-task siblings it overlaps with. It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., all cardIds must belong to one board, matching the 'one board' constraint) or when to prefer the individual tools.

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