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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses important internal behavior: the batch runs bounded individual write operations one by one and does not create a backend transaction. This is critical for agents to understand non-atomicity and partial-failure potential. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations alone do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the trigger conditions, followed by two disambiguation rules and one internal-behavior caveat. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 complex batched-write tool, the description covers the key decision points: when to use it, when to use alternatives, and how the batch behaves internally. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's burden, and the annotations already signal the destructive nature. This is complete for safe and correct 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?

The schema already documents most parameters at roughly 75% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful selection-level semantics by telling agents when to use repeatRule/rrule versus duplicate operations, and when to prefer create_plan with relatedTasks over separate operations. This goes beyond the schema's individual field descriptions and helps structure the operations array correctly.

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's purpose: batch-creating or modifying multiple Familia tasks, list tasks, plans, and task attachments in one request. It distinguishes this from single-operation sibling tools by anchoring on 'multiple in one request' and by naming create_plan as the preferred alternative for main-event-plus-related-actions cases.

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 explicit when-to-use conditions: explicit user request for multiple items, or one prompt with multiple standalone dated actions. It also provides clear when-not-to-use guidance: repeated tasks/plans should use repeatRule/rrule on one operation, and related dated actions should go into a single create_plan with relatedTasks. This directly routes agents away from misuse.

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