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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true / readOnlyHint=false annotations: it discloses non-atomic execution, lack of automatic retry, default stop-on-first-failure, retention of successful operations, and per-item result indexing by index/ref. The timeout guidance ('relire les ressources, ne pas dupliquer les créations') is exactly the kind of recovery behavior an agent cannot infer from 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation limit and prerequisites before the failure/retry semantics. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the telegraphic style (dropped articles, compressed clauses) slightly raises parsing cost.

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?

For a 49-resource-type, 4-action batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky parts an agent needs: atomicity, retry safety, error-stop behavior, and result shape. Minor gaps remain on permission requirements for delete and on whether successful results are returned when the batch halts early.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it surfaces the data.version precondition for update (absent from the schema), explains the default stopOnError behavior, and clarifies that item results are keyed by index/ref. The 50-item cap and action/type enums are left to the schema, which is acceptable since they are self-describing.

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 and resource ('Jusqu'à 50 opérations sur les ressources du catalogue') and immediately bounds it with the 50-item cap and catalog scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings, describe_resources (read first) and batch_actions (protected business actions), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: consult describe_resources before building items, update requires data.version, and protected business actions belong to batch_actions. It stops short of saying when a batch is preferable to individual calls or when not to batch at all, which keeps it from a 5.

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