workiva_batch_edit_rich_text

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 only names parameters and their roles, but does not explain side effects, mutation risks, revision handling, or consequences on existing content. There is no mention of what makes a batch edit successful or whether it's reversible.

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 with a simple parameter list, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise. Every line is terse, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, especially regarding the 'data' parameter.

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 involves batch editing with a revision parameter and a complex data structure, but the description is minimal. It doesn't explain how to construct 'edit operations', why revision is required, or what happens on mismatch. The output schema exists, but the input contract is incomplete for a 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief meanings for each parameter ('richText UUID', 'Current revision', 'Edit operations'), but the explanation for 'data' is tautological ('Edit operations') and does not describe the structure or allowed operations. Revision semantics are also vague.

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 states a clear action ('Batch edit') and a specific resource ('rich text paragraphs'), which distinguishes it from read, duplicate, and other rich-text tools. However, it lacks detail on the exact scope of 'edit' operations, so it doesn't fully differentiate from potential siblings like 'workiva_edit_table_structure' or similar.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The context of batch editing implies multiple operations but this is not explicitly stated.

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