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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose meaningful behavior: a 200-record cap, that each item is evaluated against the shop's approval rules just like a single call, and that results can be done, approval_required or failed, implying per-item partial outcomes. It omits atomicity guarantees, error/retry semantics, and permission requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope constraint and action list front-loaded before the outcome semantics. Every clause 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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action scope and the per-item result model adequately, but leaves the parameter contract (tags/person_ids conditionality, max tags, uuid formats) undocumented. An agent could still call it, but would be guessing on key inputs.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description should explain them, but it only restates the action enum already present in the schema. It never explains what shop_id, ids, tags, or person_ids mean, nor that tags are required for addTags/removeTags actions or that person_ids apply to visits.assign.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Run one safe action on up to 200 records') and then enumerates every permitted action value, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. The batching scope distinguishes it from single-record siblings like customers_archive or visits_assign.

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 (batch a single action across many records) and notes that items follow shop approval rules, but it never states when to prefer this over looping single-call tools, nor when not to use it. There are no named alternatives.

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