tasks_batch_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update multiple tasks' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, whether updates are atomic or partial, or what happens with invalid inputs. This is a significant gap for a batch mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and scope, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 mutation tool with complex nested parameters (1 top-level parameter with deep nesting), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't provide enough context about behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes for safe and effective use.

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 description mentions 'multiple tasks' which hints at the array structure, but with 0% schema description coverage and a complex nested parameter structure (inputs array with id and properties objects), the description adds minimal value. It doesn't explain what 'inputs' contains, what properties can be updated, or the required fields, leaving the agent to decipher the schema alone.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('multiple tasks'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'tasks_update' (single task update) or 'tasks_batch_create' (batch creation), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when batch updates are preferable to individual updates, what prerequisites might exist, or any limitations. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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