Bulk Field Operation

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description carries real added weight: it reveals that clear blanks a field, that dry_run avoids saving, and that fork copies surface in a 'skipped' array with {id, reason}. It stops short of stating permission requirements or rollback/versioning behavior, though the version_comment param hints at versioning.

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?

Front-loaded purpose statement, tight bulleted operation list, then scope/dry-run guidance, then a concrete example. Every block earns its place and a reader can skim to the relevant part.

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 an 11-param destructive bulk tool with no output schema, the description covers operations, scoping, dry-run safety, and the skipped-result shape. It does not address permissions, locking (siblings include acquire_content_lock), or rate considerations, leaving a small gap.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by defining what each operation value does (e.g., wrap consumes before/after, append adds text after the existing value) — semantics the schema enum does not enumerate — plus the skipped-return behavior tied to content_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 states a precise verb and resource ('Apply a single field operation to all matching content pages in one call') and the enumerated operation set (clear/set/prepend/append/wrap) clearly distinguishes it from sibling bulk tools like bulk_update_content and scoped_search_replace_execute.

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?

It gives clear operational context: scope filters select the affected pages, dry_run previews changes without saving, and only live pages mutate. The example call shows a realistic invocation, but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided.

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