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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral substance beyond them: every reference is pre-validated and the operation is all-or-nothing ('if any is unknown or ambiguous nothing changes'), the same permission rules as the app's bulk bar apply, and a per-task report of changed/skipped items is returned.

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?

Front-loaded with the enumeration of actions, followed by validation/atomicity behavior, permission model, and report format, with the docs link last. The action list moderately duplicates the schema enum but is defensible as a scan-friendly summary; overall dense with little waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations beyond hints and no output schema, the description covers atomic pre-validation, the permission model, and the shape of the result (per-task report of what changed and why it was skipped). Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 78% and most parameter semantics live in the schema, but the description adds genuine value by specifying the accepted reference formats for task_ids (full ids, short ids like fd959117, or task links) — a format the schema does not state. It does not, however, add anything for reason, status, or deadline 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?

Names a specific verb (bulk update) and resource (tasks) and enumerates the exact operations available (move, set/clear deadline, set status, park/unpark, reassign), which maps cleanly onto the action enum. The 'up to 100 tasks' scoping and 'ONE change' framing immediately distinguish it from the single-task update_task sibling.

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?

Strong implicit guidance via the 'Apply ONE change' constraint (multiple changes require multiple calls) and the scope limit of 100 tasks. However, it never explicitly names the alternative for single-task edits (update_task) or states when-not to use bulk semantics, so it stops short of explicit routing.

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