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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses partial-failure semantics: one result per task, with missing/archived/private-project tasks returning not_found while the rest still apply. It also reveals side effects an agent could not otherwise know — completing a recurring task spawns its next occurrence, and the assigned member starts following each task.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then rules, then result semantics, then parameter constraints. No sentence is filler and the ordering matches how an agent would reason about calling 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?

The tool has three parameters, an output schema for per-task results, and full annotations; the description fills exactly the remaining gaps — partial success behavior, side effects, and assignment constraints. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing, aside from the edge case of an empty update payload.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does supply meaning: responsible_member_id must be an active team member and triggers a follow relationship, and 'up to 50' bounds task_ids. It does not explain what happens when neither update field is provided, and it leaves task_ids' numeric-string format to the schema pattern.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the status and/or the responsible member of up to 50 tasks in shared projects at once.' The word 'bulk' and the 50-task cap separate it from the single-task update_task sibling without naming it directly, which is a small missed opportunity but still lets an agent route correctly.

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?

It establishes context clearly: shared projects only, up to 50 tasks, and the Spun bulk-action rule set that governs behavior (e.g., recurring tasks spawning their next occurrence). It does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over update_task or what to do if neither status nor responsible_member_id is supplied, so an exclusion statement is missing.

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