batch_update_discussions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly discloses a key limitation (cannot update dates/points) but does not mention whether updates overwrite existing values, whether the operation is atomic, or any permission prerequisites. Additionally, the inclusion of 'title' misleadingly implies a capability that is not backed by the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, and includes an explicit alternative in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, with no 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?

Given this is a batch mutation tool with a nested updates object and no output schema or annotations, the description does not explain the structure of the updates object, error handling, atomicity, or return behavior. It covers key limitations and the alternative tool, but more context would be needed for an agent to confidently invoke it 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?

The description adds some semantics by listing updatable fields and excluding dates/points, but it mentions 'title' which is not in the schema and omits the 'discussion_type' parameter that is present. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented 'updates' object, instead introducing an inaccuracy.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and identifies the resource ('multiple discussions') and fields ('title/message/published'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like batch_update_dates. However, it says 'title' is updatable though the schema does not include a 'title' property, which slightly muddies the purpose.

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?

It explicitly states when not to use this tool ('Cannot update dates or points') and names the exact alternative ('use batch_update_dates with assignment_ids'), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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