Add or update indicators in a private intel feed

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

Annotations already declare the mutation safety profile, and the description adds a permission requirement (intel:write) plus a bulk cap. There is mild unaddressed tension between 'upserts' and idempotentHint=false, but the description does not explicitly claim idempotency, so no contradiction is asserted.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the intent/example and the permission requirement. 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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, scale, intent, and auth. Only the return/partial-failure behavior on a bulk upsert is left unaddressed.

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% and the schema itself carries the rich field-level guidance (filename vs hash usage, WDAC caveat, maxItems), so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('bulk upserts'), resource (indicators), and target (a private intel feed), with a concrete capacity bound. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling manage_customer_intel_item.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('extract IOCs from this report and add them to MagicSword') and states the required scope (intel:write). It does not explicitly contrast with manage_customer_intel_item, but the 'bulk up to 100' framing implies the batch-vs-single distinction.

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