tasks_batch_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether it requires specific permissions, if updates are atomic/partial, error handling for invalid inputs, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a batch mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update multiple tasks') and adds clarifying context ('in a single request'). No extraneous words or redundant information.

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 batch mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain input semantics, behavioral traits (permissions, atomicity), error handling, or output format. Given the complexity of batch operations and lack of structured documentation, more guidance is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'multiple tasks' but doesn't explain the 'inputs' parameter structure, required fields (id, properties with hs_task_subject/body), or property meanings (e.g., hs_task_priority enum values). The schema details these, but without description coverage, users rely solely on raw schema interpretation.

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 'Update multiple tasks in a single request' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (tasks), and specifies it's a batch operation. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'tasks_update' (single task update) or 'tasks_batch_create' (batch creation), leaving the differentiation implicit rather than explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing task IDs), compare it to single-task updates ('tasks_update') or batch creation ('tasks_batch_create'), or specify scenarios where batch updating is preferred over individual updates.

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