Bulk Update Affliction Types

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only or destructive. The description adds that 'only the supplied fields are changed', clarifying partial update behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful extra context about the update mechanism.

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 short and to the point, with two main sentences plus supporting metadata. It front-loads the primary purpose. The slight redundancy with 'Incidents' could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 (bulk update, no output schema), the description covers the update behavior, required parameter, and API location. However, it omits details like the expected format of 'ids', constraints (e.g., maximum batch size), and error handling. The lack of this information reduces completeness.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond noting that company_id is required. The description repeats this but does not enhance understanding of parameter semantics.

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 multiple Affliction Types with one request', indicating a bulk operation. The verb 'update' and resource 'Affliction Types' are specific. However, there is a minor confusion when it says 'update an existing Incidents', mixing terms ('Incidents' vs 'Affliction Types'). This slightly reduces clarity but does not obscure the overall purpose.

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 does not mention that single updates should use 'update_affliction_type' or when to prefer this over other bulk_update tools. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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