bulk_update_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the update object is merged into each listed file and gives concrete examples of effects. However, it does not mention potential side effects, failure behavior, permissions, or whether changes are reversible.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and endpoint are front-loaded, and the examples are compact and directly informative.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides enough to invoke correctly: what it does, how it applies updates, and representative field values. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and no mention of return values or error behavior, but these are not critical for basic selection and invocation.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds value with concrete examples of valid update payloads ({ holdUntil: 0 } and { TranscodeDecisionMaker: 'Queued' }), clarifying the shape and purpose of the updates object beyond the generic schema text.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('fields on specific file records by ID'), and includes the endpoint. It is clearly distinct from siblings like bulk_delete_files because it targets field updates rather than deletion.

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 examples imply usage for releasing holds and requeueing files, but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over related siblings like requeue_files or bulk_delete_files. Usage context is present but not directly contrasted with alternatives.

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