post-crm-v4-objects-objtype-batch-update_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as a batch update but does not disclose side effects beyond mutation, partial failure behavior, permissions, rate limits, or response format. The 'REQUIRES body parameter' note is an input requirement, not a behavioral disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, and the example is illustrative. The text is efficient, but the example's inaccurate body wrapper and missing objectType undermine the structural clarity, preventing it from being a high-quality concise description.

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?

This is a batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description does not clarify the full request shape, expected return value, error handling, or partial-failure semantics. It also omits the required objectType from the example, leaving significant gaps for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning for 'id' vs 'idProperty' with 'by internal ID, or unique property values.' However, the example '{body: {inputs: [...]}}' introduces a 'body' wrapper that is not part of the schema and omits the required 'objectType' parameter, which is actively misleading about how to supply parameters.

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 operation ('Update a batch of objects') and the distinguishing scope ('by internal ID, or unique property values'). It differentiates this from sibling batch-create, batch-read, batch-archive, and batch-upsert tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast v3 vs v4.

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 an explicit requirement ('REQUIRES body parameter with objects to update') and a usage example, which gives some implementation guidance. However, it does not state when to prefer this over alternative tools like the v3 batch-update, single-object patch, or batch-upsert, so the when-to-use guidance is mostly implied.

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