Submit Activities (Bulk)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the write/non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description nonetheless adds substantial context beyond them: fail-soft sequential execution, per-item outcomes returned in `results`, per-item `ai` wholly replacing (not merging with) the top-level default, and the actor/changeStatus/state-override rules that force `confirmed: true`. This is real disclosure that goes well past what the annotations state.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the routing decision before moving to mechanics and guardrails. It is dense — the "Max 100 items" point duplicates the schema's maxItems constraint — but nearly every sentence carries actionable 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming what returns in `results` (success, entryId, flagged, validation details) and how to correlate via `clientRef`. Combined with batch-level guardrails and chunking guidance, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly at scale.

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 67%, and the description fills key gaps: it clarifies the no-partial-merge semantics of per-item `ai`, the correlation purpose of `clientRef`, and the precise trigger conditions for `confirmed` (actor='hybrid', activity='changeStatus', or any state override). It does not restate the simpler item fields already documented in the schema, which is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("bulk variant of submit_activity: one call applies one named activity of one module to many entries") and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling submit_activity. An agent can distinguish it from submit_activity and the read-only siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Names the alternative and the condition that selects it: "Use instead of N sequential submit_activity calls when creating/editing many rows — one tool turn instead of N." It also supplies operational guidance (max 100 items, chunk beyond that) and the guardrail conditions that gate use of `confirmed`.

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