batch_remove_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the resource types and size limit but does not mention irreversibility, partial failure behavior, or any side effects of removing tasks/projects. Since removal is destructive, this lack of warning is a significant gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes the key constraint (max 100), and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for the limited scope of the tool.

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?

The tool is a destructive batch operation with minimal schema guidance. Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not clarify error handling, atomicity, or which fields are expected in items. Given the complexity of batch mutations, the description is insufficient for an agent to use it reliably.

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?

The schema has one parameter, items, which is an array of arbitrary objects with no property descriptions (schema coverage 0%). The description adds no detail about the required structure of each item (e.g., ID, type). The agent cannot infer how to construct valid item objects, so parameter semantics are almost entirely undefined.

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 removes multiple tasks or projects in a single operation, specifying the action (remove), the object (tasks/projects), and scope (multiple, max 100). This distinguishes it from the singular remove_item sibling and the batch_add_items tool, making the purpose 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 implies usage for batch removals by noting 'multiple tasks or projects' and the 100-item limit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over remove_item or when not to use it (e.g., for single items). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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