bulk_update_product_reviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The 【副作用】 section discloses immediate effect, potential average rating updates, and partial failure behavior, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with labeled sections ([WRITE], 【用途】, etc.), front-loading the purpose. It is slightly verbose but each section earns its place. A bit more conciseness could improve readability.

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 no output schema, the description includes a return structure summary and side effects. It also mentions the API endpoint. It is fairly complete for a bulk update tool, though it does not cover authentication or permissions.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The parameter 'updates' is already documented in the schema. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 '批次更新多筆商品評論' (batch update multiple product reviews) with a [WRITE] prefix, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'bulk_create_product_reviews' and 'bulk_delete_product_reviews'. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 【用途】 section provides a clear example ('適用於管理員批次公開或隱藏評論'), indicating appropriate use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use the single update tool ('update_product_review') instead, lacking when-not and alternative guidance.

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