crm_batch_update_objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's an update operation but doesn't mention critical aspects like whether it's idempotent, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, returns partial successes, or what happens on errors. For a batch mutation tool, this lack of behavioral context 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 (batch mutation with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the object types, input structure, behavioral traits, or output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly without additional context.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'multiple CRM objects' and 'single request', which hints at the 'inputs' array parameter but doesn't explain the 'objectType' enum or the structure of 'inputs' (id and properties). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural definition, meeting the baseline for low coverage.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('multiple CRM objects'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling batch update tools like 'crm_batch_update_companies' or 'crm_batch_update_contacts', which handle specific object types, whereas this tool supports multiple types via an enum parameter.

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 batch updates (e.g., crm_batch_update_companies, crm_batch_update_contacts), there's no indication that this tool is more generic or when to prefer it over type-specific batch updates, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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