Bulk update content

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.) by disclosing that the tool always previews first and requires a confirm_token to write anything, so no changes are applied without explicit confirmation. It also reveals that find/replace entries that don't match are skipped rather than aborting the batch. These are important behavioral traits not present in the schema or annotations, greatly aiding correct usage.

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 with zero fluff. The first sentence establishes the purpose and examples; the second immediately covers the critical preview/confirm behavior. All information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested filter/changes/content_edits objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential workflow and a key nuance (skipping non-matching finds). The schema handles parameter details comprehensively. It doesn't describe the preview response structure, but that's a minor gap; the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description adds workflow-level context (the two-step preview/confirm flow) that clarifies the confirm_token's role beyond the schema's brief 'Token from the preview', and explains the skip-on-non-match behavior for content_edits. This enriches understanding but doesn't redefine individual parameter meanings, making a 4 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 opens with a specific verb ('Apply'), a clear resource ('many items'), and enumerates concrete change examples (status, reassign author, add category, find/replace). It explicitly distinguishes from single-item tools by emphasizing 'many items at once', making the tool's niche unambiguous even without naming siblings like update_content.

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 the preview-first, confirm-token workflow, which is a critical usage guideline that dictates the calling sequence. It implicitly contrasts with single-item update tools by targeting bulk edits, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to follow the correct two-step invocation.

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