bulk_update_cues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does very little. It does not explain that this is a mutating operation that overwrites existing timing values, what happens to cues whose IDs are invalid, whether the update is atomic across all cues, or what permission/undo implications exist. Only neutral timing language is offered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy, which is efficient. It is brief almost to a fault, but nothing in it fails to earn 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?

For a bulk mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks key context: whether updates apply uniformly to all cueIds, error/partial-failure behavior, and confirmable side effects. The one-line description is not sufficient to call this safely.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters with units and behavior (e.g. followTime 'null to remove auto-follow'). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Update), resource (cues), and scope (multiple cues in a single operation), which lets an agent distinguish it from the singular update_cue and from bulk_create_cues / bulk_delete_cues. However, it advertises only 'fade times and follow times' while the schema also supports skip status and easing type, so the stated purpose is narrower than the tool actually is.

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 phrase 'for multiple cues in a single operation' implicitly signals the batch use case versus single-cue update_cue, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative. Usage is inferable from the wording rather than stated.

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