Batch Update RFIs

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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: partial update (only supplied fields changed), returns modified object, and constraint that all specified RFIs must use same values. Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive, so description adds meaningful context without contradiction.

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?

Description is concise at 4-5 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, includes constraints, required parameters, and API endpoint. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Lacks full completeness: does not describe the structure of the data parameter (fields that can be updated) or the response format beyond stating it returns the modified object. No output schema is provided, so description should compensate but does not fully do so. Error handling or partial success behavior is omitted.

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 already describes parameters well (100% coverage). Description adds value by clarifying the batch nature: 'Specify the RFIs by their IDs' and 'Pass in the same values for each specified RFI'. This helps agent understand how to structure the data parameter array, though the exact field structure for RFI updates is not detailed.

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?

Clearly states it updates specified RFIs in a project, with explicit constraints (same values for each) and resource identification by IDs. Purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling batch update tools by naming the RFI resource.

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?

Provides some context: 'Use this to update existing RFI records'. However, does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_rfi for single updates, or when not to use it. The constraint about same values is mentioned but not as a contraindication for differentiated updates.

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