seo_bulk_edit_keywords

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns: 'Pass `confirm: true` to proceed (this can silently overwrite tags/intent/priority for many keywords at once),' and highlights the requirement that at least one editable field must be supplied. This goes beyond the schema's confirm=true constraint and provides crucial safety context about the bulk overwrite behavior.

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 three tight sentences plus an example, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action, then covers safety, constraints, workflow, and a concrete example in a compact, scannable format. Every sentence earns 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the bulk semantics, the confirm requirement, the overwrite risk, the prerequisite workflow, and provides an example. An agent can confidently select and correctly invoke this tool based solely on this description.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it states that the same values are applied to every id in keywordIds, and adds a logical constraint not in the schema ('At least one of intent, userTags, priority, or excludedFromClustering must be supplied'). The concrete JSON example also clarifies the exact shape of an invocation. These additions raise it above the baseline 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit userTags, intent, priority, and/or excludedFromClustering across N SeoScoredKeyword rows in one call.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like seo_edit_keyword (single) and seo_bulk_delete_keywords (delete). The scope ('across N...rows') and the mention of 'Housekeeping op' further clarify its role.

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 clear context and a typical flow: 'call seo_list_keyword_ids with a filter to get the target ids, then pass them here.' It also labels itself as 'not part of the main flow,' which guides when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention an alternative for single edits (seo_edit_keyword) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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