batch_complete_tasks

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing preflight validation, result verification, rollback on failure, and the special behavior for repeating tasks. These are not captured in the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) and provide valuable insight into the tool's safety and side effects.

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 concise at three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the core action and batch limit, the second covers operational guarantees (preflight/verification/rollback), and the third highlights an important edge case. No unnecessary words are used, and key information is front-loaded.

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 description provides comprehensive context for a complex batch mutation tool: it addresses failure handling, result verification, and repeating task behavior. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the high level of operational detail. A minor omission is the lack of mention of the return format, but this is not critical for tool selection.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the 'items' parameter, including descriptions for taskId, action, and completionDate. The description adds minimal new parameter-level semantics, mainly restating the 'stable ID' concept and optional completion dates. It does not significantly enhance what the schema already explains, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Mark tasks complete or incomplete by stable ID.' It uses a specific verb (mark) plus the resource (tasks) and distinguishes itself from sibling batch tools like batch_move_tasks and batch_remove_items by focusing on completion status.

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 establishes clear usage context by noting it accepts up to 100 items, implying a batch operation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as using edit_item for single-task updates. The batch scope is communicated but no exclusions are stated.

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