tasks_batch_archive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive action ('archive/delete') but lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or response format. For a destructive batch tool, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('archive/delete') and scope ('multiple tasks in a single request'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive batch tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency, parameter semantics, and usage guidelines needed for safe and effective invocation. The conciseness doesn't compensate for these critical gaps in 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 0%, but the description adds no parameter details beyond implying 'taskIds' are needed. It doesn't explain ID format, array size limits, or validation rules. With one parameter and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as the description minimally compensates by hinting at the parameter's role.

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 ('archive/delete') and resource ('multiple tasks') with the scope 'in a single request.' It distinguishes from the singular 'tasks_archive' sibling by specifying batch operation, though it doesn't explicitly mention all batch alternatives. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_archive' (for single tasks) or other batch operations. The description implies batch usage but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from naming patterns alone.

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