update_rows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it reveals the critical overwrite-not-merge behavior, per-row version checking, partial success semantics, and a hard limit of 2000 rows. This goes well beyond basic read/write hints.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and uses a clear NOTE block for critical behavioral differences. Every sentence contributes essential information with zero fluff.

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's complexity (batch mutation, versioning, partial success, size limits) and lack of annotations, the description covers all major operational aspects. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does specify that each row item needs 'id', 'version', and 'cells', and clarifies that 'cells' overwrites the entire cell set. However, it doesn't detail types for 'id'/'version' or provide an example, leaving some ambiguity.

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 'Update many rows' with a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling update_row by contrasting bulk behavior. This makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 notes the difference from update_row ('unlike update_row, bulk cells OVERWRITES... rather than merging'), providing an implicit when-to-use vs alternative. It also gives concrete constraints: requires id/version/cells per item, partial success with individual version checks, and a 2000-row maximum.

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