Bulk-update Tracker entities

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine non-annotation behavior: the operation is asynchronous and returns an operation id that must be polled. It stops short of saying the body can also add links and comments (it says only 'field update'), so it is not fully complete.

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, no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the follow-up polling instruction comes second, in the order the agent needs it.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by saying it returns an operation and naming the poll tool. Minor gap: it doesn't note that the async operation can fail partially or that links/comments are also modifiable, but an agent has enough to call it 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 schema already documents entity_type values and the nested body/values/links/comment fields. The description adds no parameter-level 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 and resource with explicit scope: 'Start an async bulk field update over many entities'. The 'bulk / many entities' framing distinguishes it in scope from the single-entity tracker_entities_update sibling without needing the schema.

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 implies usage ('over many entities') and gives the follow-up step (poll with entities_bulk_get), but never states when to prefer this over tracker_entities_update or what prerequisites apply. It is implied guidance rather than explicit when/when-not routing.

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