post-crm-v3-objects-objtype-batch-upsert_upsert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the create/update nature and batch processing, but lacks important behavioral details such as idempotency, what happens if no matching unique property is found, error handling, or whether the operation is atomic. The 'REQUIRES body parameter' statement is also misleading relative to the schema.

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 concise, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence about the body parameter is somewhat vague and potentially redundant given the schema, but overall the text is short and to the point.

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 batch upsert operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the response contains, how errors are handled, or clarify the unique property matching mechanism (e.g., whether idProperty is required). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond telling the user to check the input schema; it does not explain how 'unique property values' map to the idProperty or id fields.

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 action (create or update) and the resource (batch of objects), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'unique property values'. However, the mention of 'REQUIRES body parameter' is confusing because the input schema shows objectType and inputs as separate parameters, not a single body parameter.

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 'by unique property values' implies the use case of matching on unique properties, but the description does not explicitly compare to alternatives like batch-create or batch-update, nor does it state when not to use this tool. No exclusionary or alternative guidance is provided.

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