bulkUpdatePeople

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful behavioral traits: rate limiting (25 PUTs per 10 seconds) and that results are returned per person. However, it does not address potential partial failures, atomicity, side effects beyond the update, or authentication requirements. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a moderate level of transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action, the second provides essential behavioral constraints (rate limit and output). Every word earns its place, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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 stating that results are returned for each person, giving the agent an idea of the response shape. It also explains the rate limit, which is crucial for bulk operations. However, it could be more explicit about partial-failure handling and that updates are applied identically across all IDs. Still, given the simple parameter set and high schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (ids, updates, mergeTags), including a note that updates mirrors updatePerson fields. Since schema coverage is high, the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema. It reinforces 'same changes' but does not introduce new parameter details, so baseline 3 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?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Update multiple people with the same changes.' This clearly distinguishes it from single-person update tools like updatePerson (a sibling) by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'same changes.' The purpose is unambiguous and immediately scopes the operation.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you need to apply identical changes to multiple people at once, rather than repeatedly calling updatePerson. It also mentions rate limiting, which is a practical consideration. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for heterogeneous updates) or explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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