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

The description does add real behavioral context beyond structured fields: side effects are inherited from the underlying action and are irreversible, and a pre-filtering step is recommended. But this directly conflicts with destructiveHint=false while one of the allowed actions is 'delete', leaving the agent with two opposing signals about whether this can destroy data.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidance and the irreversibility warning; every sentence carries information. The trailing '| EN: object, record, entry, …' keyword list is padding but brief.

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 a 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and irreversibility. It omits partial-failure semantics (all-or-nothing vs. per-object), which would matter for a bulk destructive operation.

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 100%, so every parameter including the action enum (delete | update) and the update-only fields is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, but no extra value is contributed.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: apply the same action to many objects in a single call (bulk edit). It is clearly distinct from single-object mutation siblings such as onto_object_update or onto_object_execute_action, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 says when to reach for it (more than one record, instead of a loop of individual calls) and adds a concrete prerequisite: narrow the target set first with onto_object_index. Both the trigger condition and the useful alternative are named.

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