batch_update_base_plan_states

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds the important warning that the tool is disabled in read-only mode, but it does not mention potential side effects, partial failure handling, or whether changes are reversible. The minimal extra context earns a middle score.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the core function and the second gives a critical limitation. No unnecessary wording, front-loaded with the action.

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 and complete parameter descriptions, the tool is well-specified. The description lacks detail on bulk-operation semantics (e.g., atomicity, partial failures), but for selection and invocation purposes, the combination of description and schema is sufficient.

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 the schema fully documents all three parameters (requests, product_id, package_name). The description adds little beyond the word 'multiple,' which is already evident from the array type of requests. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (activate or deactivate), the resource (multiple base plans), and the scope (single operation). This distinguishes it from the singular sibling tools activate_base_plan and deactivate_base_plan.

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 phrase "in a single operation" implies batch usage versus calling singular tools repeatedly. It also includes an explicit exclusion: "Disabled in read-only mode," telling the agent when not to use it.

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