evidence_update_bulk

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation is already known. The description adds context by specifying 'editable metadata' and that each entry carries its own evidenceId and changes, giving behavioral insight beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the verb and scope, includes usage alternatives, and provides a prerequisite—all relevant information without unnecessary detail.

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?

While the description covers purpose, alternatives, and prerequisite, it fails to explain the critical relationship between the 'ids' array and the 'patch' array, and does not mention return values or error behavior. Given no output schema and a bulk mutation tool, this gap leaves the description minimally viable but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely mentions 'each entry carries its own evidenceId and changes' but does not explain the structure of the 'patch' array (operation/path/value) or how 'ids' relates to 'patch'. This leaves significant ambiguity for correctly invoking the tool.

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 tool updates editable metadata of several evidences in one call, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool evidence_update for single evidence, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to prefer evidence_update for a single evidence and requires evidence_search to find the evidenceIds. This provides clear when-to-use and alternative tool guidance, exceeding basic usage context.

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