Bulk update Kanban tasks

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it reports per-id outcomes without aborting siblings (failure isolation behavior), and writes 'redacted receipts' (security-conscious output redaction). With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations present, the description's explicit non-aborting behavior and receipt-redaction add meaningful behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

A single dense sentence that packs the endpoint, the operation scope, the patchable fields, the failure-isolation behavior, and the receipt-redaction detail without wasted words. It's compact but carries substantial meaning. Could benefit from a second sentence distinguishing edge cases, but as a one-liner it's efficient.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters with 100% schema coverage and an output schema present, which reduces the description's burden. The description covers the operation type, scope, and key behaviors. Given the complexity (bulk mutation with per-id outcomes), the description adequately frames the tool, though it could note which parameters are mutually exclusive (e.g., status vs archive vs completion).

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds the critical unifying semantics that all patches are applied to 'every id in the list' uniformly, and that status/assignee/priority/archive/completion are the patchable aspects. However, the description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it hovers slightly above the baseline 3 rather than reaching 5.

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 it's a 'Typed POST /api/plugins/kanban/tasks/bulk wrapper' that applies patches 'to every id in the list', specifying the exact fields (status, assignee, priority, archive, or completion) and behaviors (per-id outcomes, no aborting siblings, redacted receipts). This is specific and distinct from the sibling hermes_kanban_task_update single-task tool.

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 establishes when to use this tool (bulk updates across multiple task ids) versus single-task alternatives. While it doesn't name specific sibling tools as alternatives, the bulk vs single distinction is evident, and the 'same patch to every id' semantics make the usage context clear.

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