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. While 'update' implies mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens on partial failures, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or response format. 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 that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 with array of objects containing 2 required properties, one of which has 16+ sub-properties), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't address error handling, permissions, response format, or provide meaningful parameter guidance beyond the basic operation.

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 for the complex nested parameter structure. The description mentions 'multiple email records' which hints at the array structure, but doesn't explain the 'inputs' parameter, the required 'id' and 'properties' fields, or what specific email properties can be updated. This leaves the agent with minimal guidance beyond the raw schema.

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') with the operational context ('in a single request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like emails_update (single update) or emails_batch_create (batch create), which would be needed for 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 emails_update (single record update) or emails_batch_create (batch creation). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for batch operations versus individual updates.

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