emails_batch_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether updates are atomic/partial, error handling for invalid inputs, rate limits, or what happens to existing properties not specified. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and front-loads the key information (update, batch, email records).

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 complex nested parameters (1 top-level parameter containing arrays of objects with 16+ properties), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what properties can be updated, how to format them, what the response looks like, or error conditions. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'multiple email records' which hints at the 'inputs' array parameter, but doesn't explain the structure (id + properties), required fields, or the meaning of any property fields like 'hs_email_status' or 'hs_email_direction'. For a complex nested parameter structure with 16+ property fields, this is insufficient.

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') and resource ('multiple email records'), and specifies it's a batch operation ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from non-batch email tools like 'emails_update', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch email tools like 'emails_batch_create' or 'emails_batch_read'.

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 'emails_update' (single update) or 'emails_batch_create' (batch creation). It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for batch updating versus individual updates.

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