jpi_update_tasks_cross_jobs

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 without mentioning behavioral aspects like permissions needed, whether updates are atomic, error handling for partial failures, or what the response contains. 'Batch operation' hints at efficiency but lacks crucial details for a 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('update tasks') and key qualifiers ('across multiple jobs', 'batch operation') with zero wasted words.

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 is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, response format, error conditions, or how it differs from similar batch tools. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing operational 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 the 'tasks' parameter as an array of objects with guid and fields. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying batch processing, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('update tasks') and scope ('across multiple jobs in a single batch operation'), which distinguishes it from simpler update tools like jpi_update_task. However, it doesn't specify what fields can be updated or mention the 'guid' requirement from the schema, making it slightly less specific than ideal.

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 this should be used for batch updates across jobs rather than single-job updates, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like jpi_update_tasks_batch or jpi_update_task. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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