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 critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are atomic or partial, error handling for failed updates, rate limits, or what happens if some objects don't exist. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 for what it communicates and front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, usage guidance relative to siblings, and any information about return values or error conditions. The tool's complexity demands more comprehensive documentation.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'objectType' means (the enum values like 'companies', 'contacts'), what 'inputs' array contains, or the structure of individual input objects. With 2 parameters completely undocumented in both schema and description, this is inadequate.

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') and resource ('CRM objects'), and specifies 'in a single request' which indicates batch processing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling batch update tools like crm_batch_update_companies, crm_batch_update_contacts, or crm_batch_update_leads, which are more specific versions of this general tool.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools including specific batch update tools (e.g., crm_batch_update_companies) and single-object update tools (e.g., crm_update_object), but the description doesn't mention any of these or provide context for choosing this general batch tool over more specific ones.

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