Batch edit items

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), so the write nature is known. The description goes further by disclosing non-atomic behavior ('Earlier edits remain if a later item fails') and per-item verification, which are not visible in annotations or the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core capability and immediately followed by the critical failure-behavior caveat. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or generic.

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 extensive schema (which documents all parameters and their semantics), an output schema for return values, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies exactly the missing behavioral context: batch scope, non-atomicity, and verification. An agent selecting and invoking the tool has all necessary cues.

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%, with detailed per-property explanations (date formats, ID vs name resolution, tag creation, status enum meanings). The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail, so it correctly relies on the schema's rich documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Edit'), resource ('tasks/projects'), a concrete bound ('up to 100'), and distinctive capabilities ('preview and per-item read-back verification'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like edit_item and batch_add_items.

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 implies a batch use case with 'in one call' but does not explicitly contrast with single-item edit_item or state when to choose this tool over alternatives. The context is inferred rather than spelled out.

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