fpt_bulk

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

The description discloses critical behaviors: delete is soft-delete (restorable), batch is transactional (all-or-nothing), editorial is deterministic with computed edit ranges. With no annotations, this provides full transparency.

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 efficiently structured with a leading sentence and bullet points for each action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-action dispatch) and that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers input parameters, behaviors, and usage for all four actions.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description compensates with detailed parameter examples for each action (e.g., exact JSON objects for delete, batch, editorial). It adds meaning beyond the enum and freeform object.

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 'Execute bulk/destructive ShotGrid operations' and enumerates four specific actions (delete, revive, batch, editorial). It differentiates from sibling tools like sg_create or sg_find by focusing on bulk/destructive operations.

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 described with its purpose and required parameters, implicitly guiding when to use each (e.g., delete for soft-deletion, batch for transactional multiple ops). The context of sibling tools further clarifies that this is for bulk/destructive tasks.

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