scf_batch_update_evidence

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

Annotations already signal write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it runs in one transaction, requires editor role, and applies partial updates so only provided fields change. The 'one transaction' wording also implies all-or-nothing behavior, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to call this 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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers scope, capacity, atomicity, and role; the second adds upsert semantics and points to the appropriate sibling tool. Every clause earns its place.

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 2-parameter batch write with a fully described schema, the description covers capacity, transactionality, permissions, partial-update behavior, and sibling routing. No output schema exists, but nothing essential for selecting or calling the tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics by stating that each operation is keyed by evidence_id and that only given fields change—information not fully expressed by individual parameter descriptions. This elevates it above baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: create or update up to 500 evidence tracking records in one transaction. It further clarifies the upsert key (evidence_id) and distinguishes this batch operation from single-record tools like scf_update_evidence. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: 'Use instead of 500 scf_update_evidence calls.' It also indicates an access prerequisite (editor role), giving an agent both the trigger condition and the relevant alternative. This is clear routing guidance with no inference required.

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