Bulk update records

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the default dry run, the requirement to pass `dryRun=false` to write, the preview/diff behavior, and the atomic failure guarantee ('If any record fails, nothing is written'). These are critical operational details for a bulk mutation tool.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose, example, selection behavior, operations, and the dry-run warning all appear in a logical order. Every sentence contributes operational information without redundant restatement.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers selection, operations, dry-run safety, preview limits, and atomic failure. It does not describe the exact shape of the returned diff, but that is a minor gap given the otherwise rich behavioral coverage.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the 67%-covered schema: it explains how `ids` and `where` combine, clarifies that all `where` conditions must match, gives field-path syntax examples, and defines each operation including rounding and min/max clamps. Although not every schema parameter is restated, the key ambiguities are resolved.

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 states a specific mutation verb and resource: 'Change one or more fields on many database records at once, with a diff.' It clearly distinguishes bulk mutation from single-record siblings and immediately provides a concrete example.

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?

It explains selection semantics precisely: records are selected by `ids` and/or `where` conditions, all conditions must match, and with neither every record is selected. It also emphasizes the dry-run workflow, but does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools such as `update_record` or `search_records`.

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