users_bulk_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation is asynchronous and returns a 202, which is important operational context. However, it doesn't explain the implications of an async operation (e.g., whether the request is queued, if there's a task ID, how to track progress), nor does it mention any validation side effects, failure modes, or permissions required. Given the lack of annotationscars, this is a moderate gap but the async note adds some 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Bulk update selected users') and includes the key operational detail (async, returns 202). It avoids unnecessary fluff. However, it could be argued that it's slightly under-specifying, but that doesn't violate conciseness – it's a clear and efficient statement.

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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters anno schema but no output schema or annotations, the description is notably incomplete. An agent would need to understand what 'async' means for the response (it returns 202, but what's in the body?), whether partial updates are allowed, and how mistakes are surfaced. It also lacks guidance on batching limits or idempotency. The description is too thin relative to the tool's complexity and the context signals (no output schema) to be fully complete.

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 100%, meaning the schema already documents all 11 parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying optionality (all are optional except userIds) or interaction between fields (e.g., that trafficLimitStrategy is only relevant if trafficLimitBytes is set). The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does a good job of defining each field's purpose, but the description adds no value.

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 a specific verb ('bulk update') and resource ('users'), and identifies the asynchronous nature with the 202 response code. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the many sibling tools that also update users (such as users_update, users_bulk_update_squads, users_bulk_all_update), the name and mention of 'selected users' gives enough clarity for an agent to infer that this is a targeted bulk update for a subset of users.

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 the numerous alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for a specific set of users (as opposed to users_bulk_all_update which affects all users), nor does it clarify the relationship to the single-user 'users_update' or the other bulk update variants like 'users_bulk_update_squads'. An agent might struggle to choose the right tool without exploring the schema of each sibling.

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