batch_update_dates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains a key non-obvious behavior: assignments with section overrides ignore the base date, and if only due_at is provided, all overrides receive the same time. This is valuable beyond the schema. It does not cover potential partial failures or return format, but the core edge case is well documented.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then diving into essential edge-case behavior. No word is wasted; the example object shorthand is compact and informative.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the complex override logic and input structure. However, it omits any indication of the response format or error handling for invalid assignment IDs, which would be useful for a batch operation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantic meaning beyond field names, particularly how due_at and section_dates interact with overrides. It also illustrates the expected array object shape, which helps the agent construct valid input.

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 immediately states 'Update dates for multiple assignments at once', which clearly specifies the action ('update dates'), the resource ('multiple assignments'), and the batch scope. This distinguishes it from singular assignment date tools like update_assignment_dates and from generic batch_update_assignments that might handle other fields.

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 gives explicit guidance on override-aware behavior: if overrides exist, update those instead of the base date, and explains when to provide section_dates vs. relying on due_at. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to choose this tool over other batch tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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