bulk_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the operation-dependent shape of `items`, but says nothing about atomicity, partial-failure behavior, whether 'delete' is permanent, permission requirements, or batch size limits.

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-loads the capability and then breaks the operation-dependent input format into three compact lines, each of which earns its place. Slightly telegraphic phrasing, but no filler.

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 batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, key facts are missing: whether operations are atomic or partially applied, what happens on mixed success, what identifiers come back, and whether deletes are recoverable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely exceeds it: it spells out the conditional shape of `items` for each operation (data objects, {id, data} pairs, or IDs), which the schema only gestures at with 'format depends on operation'.

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?

Names a specific resource (Article) and a specific capability (bulk create/update/delete of multiple items), plus enumerates the three supported operations. The word 'bulk' plus 'multiple items' implicitly separates it from the single-item siblings create_article/update_article/delete_article, though it never names them.

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?

Usage is implied by 'bulk' and 'multiple items' — an agent can infer this is for batch work rather than single-record edits. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points at the single-item siblings as the alternative for one record.

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