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 but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if updates are atomic or partial, error handling for invalid inputs, rate limits, or what happens when some updates fail. 'Update' implies mutation, but no safety or operational context is given.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update multiple tasks') and adds necessary context ('in a single request'). 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 batch mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (permissions, error handling), parameter details beyond a vague hint, or expected outcomes. The complexity of batch operations demands more context than provided.

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 minimal value by implying the 'inputs' parameter contains task updates. However, it doesn't explain the structure of 'inputs' (array of objects with 'id' and 'properties'), the meaning of properties like 'hs_task_priority', or required fields beyond what the schema shows. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description partially compensates for low schema coverage but leaves significant gaps.

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 understandable. It distinguishes from single-task updates by specifying 'multiple tasks in a single request', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch operations like 'tasks_batch_create' or 'tasks_batch_archive' in the sibling list.

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_update' for single updates or other batch operations. The description mentions 'multiple tasks' but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or ideal use cases for batch updating versus individual updates.

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