upservice_bulk_update_directory_relations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of adding/removing aligns. The description adds that the return is a JSON confirmation string, but does not disclose potential side effects, requirement of permissions, or non-idempotent behavior beyond annotations.

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 concise with two sentences plus an args list. It is front-loaded with purpose and includes the return type. Could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient with no wasted words.

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 complexity of the nested input and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (adding/removing links) and return type. It does not detail validation or error handling, but the schema fills gaps, making it reasonably 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% for the top-level param, but the schema itself contains detailed descriptions for all nested fields. The description summarizes the args (record_id, relations) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: adding or removing multiple links between a directory record and other entities. It specifies the verb 'Add or remove multiple links' and the resource 'directory record and other entities', which differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on single updates or queries.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as single-relation update tools or listing tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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