Bulk Update Custom Fields

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe-to-retry write operation. The description adds valuable partial-update semantics ('Only id is required per item; all other fields are optional'), which clarifies which fields will be changed. No contradictions with 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 two sentences long and immediately front-loads the HTTP method, endpoint, and core action. Every sentence adds value—there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 rich input schema that documents all nested properties, the description provides the essential framing for how to construct the 'fields' array. It does not elaborate on return values or error behavior, but with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the tool is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a concise summary of the array structure and the requirement that each item must contain an id, while reinforcing that other fields are optional. This goes beyond the schema's property-level descriptions by explaining the top-level usage pattern.

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 a specific verb ('Bulk update') and resource ('custom fields') with explicit scoping ('multiple custom fields in a single request'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling gorgias_update_custom_field by emphasizing the bulk nature, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 conveys the intended use case for batch updates ('Bulk update multiple custom fields') vs single-field updates, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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