map_bulk_add_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that it returns an array of created IDs, but provides no information about failure semantics, atomicity, partial failures, or side effects. For a bulk mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, so the description's mention of return value is helpful. However, for a bulk operation, the lack of details on partial failure or behavior on invalid inputs leaves the description incomplete for nuanced use cases.

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 the 'connections' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter structure or formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Add multiple connections' with a specific resource (connections) and the batching scope 'in a single call'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool map_add_connection which implies single-connection operation.

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 'in a single call' clearly implies a batching use case, and the sibling tool naming (map_add_connection) makes the alternative explicit. However, it stops short of explicitly stating 'use this instead of map_add_connection' or defining when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusion.

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