crm_batch_update_companies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if updates are atomic or partial, error handling for failed updates, rate limits, or what the response looks like. 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 wasted words. 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, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context about behavior, error handling, permissions, and response format, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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?

The description mentions 'multiple companies' which implies an array input, aligning with the 'inputs' parameter in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (a complex nested array), the description doesn't add meaningful details about parameter structure, required fields, or property semantics beyond what's obvious from the name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides structure but no descriptions.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('multiple companies'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'crm_batch_update_contacts' or 'crm_batch_update_objects' beyond specifying the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'crm_update_company' (single update) or other batch update tools for different resources. It mentions 'in a single request' which hints at efficiency but doesn't explicitly state use cases or prerequisites.

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