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

Goes well beyond the annotations (non-destructive, non-idempotent) by disclosing that partial success is normal, the exact result shape (`summary` plus per-field `_ref`/`status`/`body`), that failures are isolated, and that `status: null` with NOT_ATTEMPTED means a deadline hit and the item should be resubmitted as-is. This is precisely the retry/mutation semantics an agent needs for a non-idempotent bulk write.

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 bulk purpose and the alternative, and the caps-labeled sections (PARTIAL SUCCESS IS NORMAL) make it scannable. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information about the result contract.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value — and it does, documenting `summary` counts, per-field entries, error `body` shape, and the NOT_ATTEMPTED case. Nothing needed to call or recover from this tool is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds value by enumerating the accepted item attributes and pointing to create_field as the authoritative source for type/cardinality/immutability guidance, plus the entity_id-is-EPT case. It stops short of adding meaning the schema lacks, but the cross-reference is genuinely useful.

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 with explicit scope: 'Add MANY fields to one entity in a single call — one bulk POST /fields instead of one create_field per field.' An agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling create_field.

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?

Explicit routing: 'read create_field's description first' for per-field semantics, and 'Prefer this over repeated create_field calls whenever you are defining two or more fields on the same entity.' The when-to-use condition and the alternative are both named.

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