task_batch_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: atomic validation, best-effort execution, per-index outcomes, side effects (writes to OmniFocus, sets meta.syncPending), and return format. It also explains the failure modes and suggests calling sync_trigger for device sync.

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 and concise. It front-loads the core purpose, uses bullet-like sentences, and includes every piece of essential information (validation, execution, alternatives, unsupported features, return format, side effects, example) without waste. Each sentence earns its place.

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 complexity of a batch update tool with a nested parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: input format, validation model, execution semantics, unsupported fields, return structure, side effects, and integration with sibling tools. It is complete and self-contained.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the supported fields in patch, explicitly stating what is not supported (addTags, removeTags, etc.), and providing a concrete example. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions and helps the agent understand the relationship to task_update.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Partially update many OmniFocus tasks in a single JXA round trip.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like task_update by stating 'Prefer this tool over repeated task_update calls whenever you are updating more than one task.' The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for updating more than one task) and when not to use it (fall back to task_update for additive tag diffs and safety primitives). It names the alternative tool and provides clear guidance.

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