batch-operations

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description mentions 'delete' as an operation type, aligning with the destructive hint. However, it adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—no information about rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'bulk' entails (e.g., atomicity, batch size limits). With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 a single, efficient sentence that lists the operation types. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by separating operation types or adding brief context, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, destructive operations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or how batch results are formatted. With annotations providing basic safety info but no output schema, the description should offer more context to help the agent understand behavioral outcomes.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying operations like create/update/delete/get/search. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'operations' interacts with 'operation_type') or clarify legacy formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 the tool performs bulk operations and lists the operation types (create, update, delete, get, search), which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what resources are operated on and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like batch-search, create-record, or update-record. The description lacks specificity about the scope or target of these operations.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for individual operations (create-record, update-record, delete-record, search, etc.), there's no indication of when batch processing is preferred over single operations, what prerequisites exist, or any limitations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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