calls_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 'Update' implying mutation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether updates are partial or full, if changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. For a batch mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand 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 inadequate. It lacks critical context such as authentication needs, error handling for partial failures, rate limits, and what the tool returns. The schema provides parameter details, but the description fails to add necessary behavioral and operational insights.

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 the 'inputs' parameter contains call records to update. However, it doesn't explain the structure of 'inputs' (e.g., array of objects with 'id' and 'properties'), the meaning of properties like 'hs_call_direction', or required fields beyond what the schema shows. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema details parameters, but the description doesn't fully 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') and resource ('multiple call records'), specifying it's a batch operation ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from the singular 'calls_update' sibling tool by emphasizing batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other batch operations like 'calls_batch_create' or 'calls_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 'calls_update' for single updates or 'calls_batch_create' for creating new records. It mentions 'multiple call records' but doesn't specify thresholds, prerequisites, or error handling for batch operations, leaving usage context unclear.

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