evidence_batch_update

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it only says 'update multiple records'. It does not mention all-or-nothing transactionality, independent commits via atomic, validation via dry_run, or partial-failure behavior; those live only in the schema.

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 one short sentence with no filler and names the core action up front. It is appropriately concise, though the awkward domain phrasing 'in an evidence' costs a little 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?

The schema fully documents evidence, records, atomic, and dry_run, and an output schema exists, so the core invocation is covered. The main gaps are usage context and behavioral caveats, which matter for a mutation tool with no annotations and many similar siblings.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the tool description does not need to compensate. It adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which sets the baseline at 3.

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 names a specific action ('update') and resource ('multiple records in an evidence') and notes the batch/single-request nature, which separates it from single-record updates and from batch insert. It does not explicitly differentiate from evidence_mass_update or define 'evidence', so it stops short of 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over evidence_update, evidence_mass_update, or evidence_batch_insert, and no exclusions or alternatives are stated. 'Single request' faintly implies batch use but leaves the decision to inference.

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