Update tasks

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the all-or-nothing write behavior, pre-validation of every taskId, error behavior listing bad entries, optional note appending, and the single aggregate journal entry. This gives an agent a precise model of what will happen, including side effects.

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: three sentences, each adding distinct value. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by behavioral guarantees and side effects. No filler or redundant restatement of the 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?

Given the annotations, full schema descriptions, and lack of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: atomicity, validation, error shape, note behavior, and journal side effect. Nothing critical 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents updates, changeId, and workspace. The description adds useful context around updates (atomic validation, error listing) but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Update the status of one or more tasks'. It makes the atomic all-or-nothing nature explicit, which clearly differentiates this from task_add and other task tools. The scope is unambiguous.

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 clearly implies use when updating task statuses in bulk, which is evident from the opening sentenceabc and the schema. It does not explicitly name alternatives like task_add or state when not to use it, so it misses the highest bar, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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