calls_batch_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' implying mutation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are atomic/partial, error handling for invalid inputs, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, parameter meanings, error handling, and output expectations, which are critical for safe and effective use.

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%, but the description adds minimal value by implying an array of inputs for batch updates. It doesn't explain the structure of 'inputs' (each with 'id' and 'properties'), the meaning of properties like 'hs_call_body', or required fields. Baseline 3 is given as it hints at batch semantics but doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the action ('update multiple call records') and resource ('call records'), distinguishing it from single-update tools like 'calls_update'. However, it doesn't specify what fields can be updated or the scope of 'multiple', leaving some ambiguity compared to siblings like 'calls_batch_archive'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calls_update' (for single updates) or 'calls_batch_archive' (for batch archiving). The description implies batch operations but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparative advantages.

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