bulk_edit_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It indicates field-level updates ('Update fields') but does not explain what happens on partial failure, whether fields are overwritten or merged, permission requirements, atomicity, or the response format. As a mutation tool, this lacks important behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and provides practical guidance in the second sentence. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 bulk mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits critical details like return value (e.g., updated assets or job ID), behavior on partial failures, and any constraints or prerequisites. While the parameter semantics are partially covered, the operational context is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 50% (only `updates` has a description). The description enriches `updates` by listing example field names and correlating it to `update_asset`, but `asset_ids` remains unexplained beyond its name. The description adds partial value but does not fully compensate for the missing schema description of `asset_ids`.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update fields on many assets in a single call.' It uses a specific verb (update), identifies the resource (assets), and contrasts with the single-asset `update_asset` sibling. The mention of field names (title, description, etc.) further clarifies scope.

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 'many assets in a single call' implies when to use this tool (bulk metadata updates) versus `update_asset` for single updates. Referencing `update_asset` for field names provides context, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives for other bulk operations (e.g., tags, rights) or state when not to use it. Usage is clearly implied but not exhaustively specified.

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