batch_update_purchase_option_states

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries a higher burden and does add one useful behavioral trait: 'Disabled in read-only mode,' signaling this is a mutating operation respecting read-only state. However, it doesn't disclose other traits like partial-failure behavior or idempotency, so it's adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by a critical operational caveat. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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?

For a relatively simple batch-state tool with a complete 100% schema, an output schema, and a clear read-only note, the description is largely sufficient. A minor gap is the lack of detail on batch constraints (e.g., max batch size or conflicting nested requests), but the current info enables correct use.

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% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (e.g., 'Parent one-time product ID', 'List of UpdatePurchaseOptionStateRequest bodies'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, keeping it at the baseline of 3.

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 action set ('Activate or deactivate') with a clear resource and scope ('multiple purchase options in a single operation'). It clearly conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from the single-operation siblings like activate_purchase_option_offer and the offer-based batch tools.

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 a batch use case, and 'Disabled in read-only mode' hints at when it cannot be used. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to guide or named alternatives, so usage context is only implied.

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