icu_bulk_update_event_access

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

Annotations (idempotent=true, destructive=false, readOnly=false, openWorld=true) already cover the safety/mutation profile, and the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: partial-update semantics ('Only the flags you pass are changed') and how non-workout events surface under `skipped`. It does not mention authoring/permission requirements for coach-managed athletes or any rate/volume limits on bulk operations, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, then scenario, then constraints, then routing — five short sentences with no filler. Every sentence carries either semantics or disambiguation.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still notes the `skipped` field. Combined with annotations covering idempotency/safety and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 mechanical definitions (oldest/newest, event_ids, athlete_id, flags) are already documented. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that IDs are calendar event IDs from icu_get_calendar_events / icu_get_upcoming_workouts rather than workout-library IDs, which prevents a real class of misinvocation.

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?

Opens with a specific verb pair (hide/reveal, lock/unlock) applied to a precisely scoped resource ('MANY planned WORKOUT calendar events at once'). It explicitly separates itself from icu_update_event for single-event edits and from the workout-library ID space, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use scenario ('build a training block ahead of time, hide it, and reveal it week by week, or lock key sessions') and names the alternative for the single-event case ('For one event use icu_update_event'). It also states the exclusions up front: only WORKOUT events are touched, notes/races/targets are skipped.

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