seo_bulk_reject_clusters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the bulk-reject action without detailing consequences, reversibility, permissions, or return format. For a mutation tool, this lack of side-effect information is a significant gap, warranting a low score.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the sibling reference efficiently orients the agent without redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with two documented parameters and no output schema, but the description omits behavioral details such as return values or state changes. While the basic purpose and parameters are covered via the schema, the absence of annotations and side-effect disclosure makes the description only minimally complete.

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 schema already describes both parameters (brandId and clusterIds) with meaningful descriptions, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The phrase 'N clusters' aligns with the clusterIds array but does not provide additional syntax or format details. Given the 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool bulk-rejects clusters in a single call, using a specific verb ('reject') and resource ('clusters'). The scope ('N clusters') distinguishes it from single-reject siblings like seo_reject_cluster. The reference to the symmetric approve tool further clarifies 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 implies usage for batch rejection of clusters, which differentiates it from single-reject tools. It also mentions symmetry with seo_bulk_approve_clusters, providing context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like seo_reject_cluster, 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.