task_batch_assign

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

No annotations are provided, but the description thoroughly covers behavioral traits: atomicity (best-effort per-item), success conditions, failure reporting with prefixes, return format, side effects (writes to OmniFocus, syncPending), and tag diff resolution logic. This compensates fully for the lack of annotations.

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 well-structured front-loading the primary purpose, then schema details, behavioral notes, and example. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (assigned and failed arrays with detailed components), side effects, and idempotency handling. It includes an example and covers all aspects needed for correct invocation, leaving no significant 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the interaction between addTagIds and removeTagIds (remove wins, no-op for same tag) and the overall batch behavior, which is not captured in the schema. This additional context justifies a score of 4.

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 applies inbox-triage style assignments to many tasks in one batch, specifying the actions (move to project, diff tags, set defer/due/flagged). It distinguishes from sibling task_batch_update by noting a tighter schema and designated use for the inbox-triage prompt's confirm step.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'Do NOT use this tool for full task replacement — use task_update or task_batch_update for those. Prefer task_batch_assign over a sequence of single task_update calls when you have a confirmed triage plan.' Also mentions it is designed for the inbox-triage confirm step.

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