edit_correspondents_bulk

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond those hints by warning that 'delete' permanently removes correspondents from the entire system, clarifying the scope and severity of the destructive action.

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 compact: two sentences plus a warning, with the core purpose and exclusion stated first. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant filler.

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?

Despite good safety context, the tool has six parameters including a nested permissions object and no output schema. The description does not explain merge/owner semantics or how permissions should be structured, so an agent would lack key information needed to construct a correct call.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the operations at a high level. It does not clarify the meaning of 'merge', 'owner', or the semantics of the permissions object, leaving several parameters effectively unexplained.

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 names a specific resource ('correspondent objects themselves') and the two operations it supports (permissions, delete). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from edit_documents_bulk by stating what it does NOT do, so an agent can disambiguate it from a likely sibling.

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 gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: 'This does NOT assign correspondents to documents' and names the exact alternative tool and method. This is more than sufficient for an agent to route to the correct sibling.

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