fpt_bulk

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: delete is a restorable soft-delete, batch is all-or-nothing transactional, editorial is deterministic with handles written to sg_head_in/sg_tail_out (never the CutItem) in the same transaction, and link_task is idempotent with a stated failure condition (nothing written if any record sits on a different Task). This is unusually rich disclosure of side effects, atomicity and idempotency.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a scannable bulleted action list, each with its required params inline. The text is long but nearly every sentence carries distinct behavioral or parameter information, so the density is justified rather than padding.

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 five-action dispatch tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers all actions, their required inputs, and their key side effects; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Missing authorization/permission requirements and error semantics keep it from being fully complete.

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 0% and the tool is a single params object, so the description must compensate — and it does, giving required-parameter JSON examples for every action and listing the optional cut keys (source_start_frame, handles, revision_number) with defaults. Optional params for delete/revive/batch/link_task are not surfaced, which keeps it below a 5.

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 clear verb and resource ('Execute bulk/destructive ShotGrid operations') and then enumerates five named actions (delete, revive, batch, editorial, link_task), each with a specific verb+object. An agent can tell exactly what each action does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like sg_update or sg_create, so it stops short of a 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?

Each action is given a context that implies when to use it — e.g. link_task explains the tk-flame Task-less situation that motivates it, and batch is framed as the option for multi-operation atomic work. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g. when to prefer sg_update over the delete action, or batch over sequential calls), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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