Batch Update Entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: updates happen in a single transaction and are capped at 50 per batch. It does not explain rollback behavior or how expected_version conflicts are handled.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key constraints. No wasted text.

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?

Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety profile, but this is a complex batch mutation with a nested updates array and low schema coverage. The description omits failure semantics, auto_index behavior, workspace isolation, and concurrency/version handling.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate more. It mentions the required project_number and its source, but does not explain the updates array structure, auto_index, workspace_id, or other nested fields.

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 and resource: update multiple existing journal entries in a single transaction. The batch scope and max-50 limit distinguish it from single-entry update_entry and from batch_create_entries.

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?

Provides a clear batch limit and a required project_number prerequisite with where to obtain it. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of update_entry or batch_create_entries, nor does it describe 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.