evidence_mass_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose mass scope and 'single request' behavior, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, risks of affecting many records, or how the action and data parameters interact. For a mutation-capable tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded. There is no redundant prose, and the parenthetical 'Davkove operace' is minor and not harmful.

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 core operation is stated and an output schema exists, but with no annotations and several closely related sibling tools, the description lacks explicit differentiators and expected-effect warnings. It is minimally viable but incomplete for guiding an agent to select this tool over evidence_batch_update or evidence_perform_action.

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%, so the baseline is 3 even without additional parameter detail in the description. The description adds no meaningful semantic information beyond mapping 'update/action' to the data/action parameters and 'filter' to filter_expr, so it does not improve on what the schema already documents.

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 a specific operation: update, or perform an action on, every record of an evidence matching a filter. The phrase 'every record ... matching a filter' conveys the mass scope, which helps distinguish it from single-record tools, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like evidence_batch_update or evidence_perform_action.

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 filter-based 'every record' phrasing implies this is for bulk operations on records matching a filter. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over evidence_batch_update, evidence_perform_action, or evidence_update, so the agent must infer the right usage context.

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