Bulk Update Action Plan Item

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it returns the modified object on success, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects implied by openWorldHint=true, nor does it add significant behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction exists.

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 relatively short (three sentences plus API info) but contains a typo ('Action Plans' vs 'Action Plan Items'). The required parameters mention is redundant with the schema. It is front-loaded with the main action but could be more succinct and error-free.

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 no output schema, the description mentions returning the modified object but lacks detail on the response structure. It includes API endpoint and category, which aids discoverability. For a bulk update with an array parameter (plan_items), more specific guidance on the payload would improve completeness. The description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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% but both parameter descriptions are brief: project_id is 'URL path parameter' and plan_items is 'the plan items for this Action Plans operation'. The description redundantly lists required parameters but does not explain what plan_items should contain (e.g., objects with id and fields). It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 it updates multiple Action Plan Items, using a specific verb and resource. However, there is a minor inconsistency: it refers to 'Action Plans' in the second sentence, which could cause confusion. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bulk_update_action_plan_item_assignees but the name and context are sufficient.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions required parameters but does not provide context on when not to use it or any prerequisites. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are provided, leaving the agent without sufficient usage context.

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