bulk_update_module_progress

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions parallel execution and returns per-user summary but does not disclose atomicity, error handling, rate limits, or authorization requirements. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then inputs and output description. No extraneous information—every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema, but description mentions returns per-user success/failure summary. For a bulk operation with 6 parameters, it covers essential input and output expectations. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or concurrent behavior, but sufficient for most use cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value with the score guidance ('Typically 100 when marking a module complete') and clarifies that note is optional. This enhances understanding 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 the action (record the same module result for multiple users in parallel), specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from siblings like update_module_progress (single user) and bulk_assign_course_to_users (different 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 description explains what to provide (list of user IDs, score, completed flag, optional note) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_module_progress for single users. Usage context is implied but not explicitly contrasted.

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