all the tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: bulk update capability (1-100 tasks), verification of task existence before updating, and the return value (count of updated tasks). However, it doesn't mention error handling, permissions needed, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second lists required inputs, third describes verification behavior, fourth specifies return value. Each sentence adds essential information, and the description is appropriately front-loaded with the core action.

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 and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the update operation, verification step, and return value. However, it lacks details on error cases (e.g., what happens if some tasks don't exist) and doesn't mention side effects or permissions, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that project_id identifies the project and task_ids is an array of 1-100 IDs. No additional syntax or format details are provided.

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 action ('Updates the status'), specifies the resource ('one or more tasks within a specified project'), and lists the exact status values. It distinguishes from siblings like 'updateTask' (which likely updates other fields) and 'listTasks' (which only reads).

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 implies usage for bulk status updates with verification, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'updateTask' (for single tasks or other fields) or 'deleteTask' (for removal). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required parameters are mentioned.

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