emails_batch_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if updates are atomic or partial, rate limits, error handling for invalid inputs, or what happens to existing properties not mentioned. 'Update' implies mutation but lacks safety or operational details.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable despite its brevity.

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 batch mutation tool with 1 parameter (but complex nested schema), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter usage, expected outputs, or error conditions. The completeness gap is significant given the tool's complexity and lack of structured documentation.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain the 'inputs' array structure, the 'id' and 'properties' fields, or the numerous nested properties like 'hs_email_subject' with their constraints. The description fails to provide any semantic context beyond the schema's raw structure.

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 ('Update') and resource ('multiple email records') with the operational context ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from individual update tools like 'emails_update' by specifying batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling batch tools like 'emails_batch_create' or 'emails_batch_read'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication, when batch updates are preferable to individual updates, or how it differs from other batch operations like 'emails_batch_create' or 'emails_batch_archive' in the sibling list.

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