crm_batch_update_objects

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 this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are atomic or partial, error handling for failed updates, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place by conveying key information about batch operations and CRM objects.

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 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral expectations, error handling, or output format. Given the complexity of batch updates and lack of structured documentation, the description should provide more context to be truly helpful.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'multiple CRM objects' which hints at the 'inputs' array parameter, but doesn't explain the 'objectType' parameter, the structure of 'inputs' (with 'id' and 'properties'), or what values 'properties' can contain. The description adds minimal value beyond what's inferable from the parameter names.

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 'Update multiple CRM objects in a single request' clearly states the action (update) and resource (CRM objects), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like crm_batch_update_companies, crm_batch_update_contacts, or crm_update_object. It specifies 'multiple' and 'single request' which adds some specificity, but lacks detail on what types of objects or how they're identified.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. With many sibling tools including specific batch update tools (crm_batch_update_companies, crm_batch_update_contacts, crm_batch_update_leads) and single-object updates, the description offers no context about when this generic batch update is preferred over more specific ones or what prerequisites might exist.

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