Batch Update Correspondence Type Items

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and that the modified object is returned on success. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or rate limits. The annotations already indicate it is not read-only or destructive, so the description provides marginal additional value.

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 of moderate length but contains some redundancy and unclear transitions between concepts. It front-loads the purpose well but then includes a reference link and a somewhat confusing statement about 'Custom - Configurable Tools'. It could be streamlined to improve clarity.

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 absence of an output schema and moderate complexity, the description lacks details about the structure of the generic_tool_items array (which is critical for batch updates) and does not explain the response format beyond returning the modified object. The endpoint is provided but the explanation of how items are specified is insufficient.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats required parameter names (project_id, generic_tool_items) but adds no new semantic meaning beyond stating partial update behavior. The structure of generic_tool_items remains undefined, as the schema's items type is an empty object.

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 the tool updates all specified Correspondence Type Items, mentions partial update behavior, and returns the modified object. However, it confusingly interchanges terms like 'Custom - Configurable Tools' with 'Correspondence Type Items', which may cause ambiguity. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly via the resource name, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar batch update tools like batch_update_generic_tool_items.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists required parameters and provides a reference link to documentation, but does not explain the context or prerequisites for using the tool. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are provided.

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