add_tasks_bulk

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses atomicity ('one atomic call'), validation ('All tasks are validated before any are inserted'), and return behavior ('Returns a prioritised execution plan'). These are valuable behavioral traits beyond basic write semantics, though it does not cover error handling or idempotency.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The opening 'FIRST CALL' is a strong front-loaded signal. Every word adds value: atomicity, validation, DAG, prioritised plan. Exemplary conciseness.

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 one parameter with nested structure and no output schema. The description explains the core behavior (bulk DAG registration) and return value (execution plan), which is sufficient for an AI agent to invoke it correctly. It could mention idempotency or response format, but overall it is complete for the described use case.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are structurally documented. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that tasks form a DAG (clarifying depends_on) and that a prioritised execution plan is returned (relating to priority). It turns the schema's raw field list into a coherent concept of a task graph.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Register your entire investigation plan as a DAG in one atomic call.' This distinguishes it from the singular 'add_task' sibling by emphasizing bulk registration of the whole plan. The phrase 'FIRST CALL' further reinforces its specific role.

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 conveys when to use it ('FIRST CALL') and implies it is the entry point for registering a full plan. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'FIRST CALL' directive and mention of the entire investigation plan provide clear usage context compared to siblings like add_task or get_ready_tasks.

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