batch_update_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals that tags must be existing IDs from the same project, and that returns are summaries by default with verbose option for full data. However, it does not cover side effects like atomicity, partial failures, or permission requirements. It adds meaningful context but is not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides value: the first states the primary function, the second covers critical constraints and return behavior. No wasted words.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is usable but incomplete. It covers the main action, tag validation, and return format, but fails to explain tagOperation, status/priority options, or what 'summaries' contain. Given moderate complexity and zero annotations, this is a minimum viable description with clear gaps.

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. It only explains tags and verbose; the other five parameters (status, priority, taskIds, projectId, tagOperation) are left entirely to schema naming and enums. The critical tagOperation semantics (add/remove/replace) are undocumented. Compensation is insufficient.

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: 'Update multiple tasks at once.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_task by emphasizing batch operation, and the mention of tags and verbose return adds specificity. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 usage for batch updates ('multiple tasks at once') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives a constraint about tags (existing IDs from same project) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_task or other siblings. Usage context is clear but not fully explicit.

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