asana_bulk_move_section

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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only (readOnlyHint: false), non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description adds useful context by revealing it loops over section.addTask and returns a per-task summary, which helps set expectations about granular results. It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, but that is acceptable given the annotations already carry the core safety profile.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: outcome, return value, and use-case. The first sentence front-loads the core action and scale. No fluff, though the phrase 'Throughput multiplier for triaging a board column' is a bit informal it still conveys intent efficiently.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the core action, the response format, and one practical use case. It does not address partial failures or edge cases, but these are relatively minor for bulk operations given the annotations cover idempotency and safety. Enough for a competent agent to call it correctly.

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% (both task_gids and section_gid are documented in the schema itself). The description does not add extra syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the parameter semantics score defaults to the baseline of 3. No compensation required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('MANY tasks into one section') and distinguishes itself from the single-move tool by explicitly stating it does bulk work in a single call. This makes the purpose unambiguous even among siblings like asana_move_section.

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 provides a clear usage context ('Throughput multiplier for triaging a board column'), indicating it is for bulk/triaging operations. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the emphasis on 'MANY' and 'single call' implicitly routes agents to this tool for bulk moves rather than single-task moves.

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