Team Batch Create Entries

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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description only needed to add operational context — and the batch cap of 50 is a genuinely useful addition. But it also asserts 'REQUIRED: You MUST include project_number' while the schema marks project_number optional and states 'workspace_id is preferred', and it instructs the agent to 'use related_to' for a parameter that does not exist (the field is 'relationships'). Both are actively misleading for a non-idempotent write.

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 opening two sentences are front-loaded and earn their place. The subsequent three 'REQUIRED: You MUST...' lines are repetitive boilerplate, and one of them encodes an incorrect constraint, so the structure spends words on guidance that actively harms accuracy.

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 complex nested-batch write tool (entries array with ~20 properties, additionalProperties=false) at 20% schema coverage, the description omits the per-entry required fields entirely — workspace_id is marked REQUIRED in the schema but never mentioned. The guidance it does give conflicts with the schema on two points, so an agent cannot safely construct a valid call from description plus schema.

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 20%, so the description carries most of the burden — and it names fields (impact_score, trust_score, validation_status, entry_type) without adding format or semantics beyond what the schema already says. Worse, it directs the agent to a nonexistent 'related_to' key and mislabels project_number as mandatory when the schema says it is optional; with additionalProperties=false on entry items, following this guidance would cause validation failures.

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, resource, and batch scope: 'Create multiple team journal entries at once. Max 50 per batch.' The 'team' qualifier plus 'multiple... at once' distinguishes it from create_entry and batch_create_entries. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the batching language ('multiple ... at once', 'Max 50 per batch'). There is no statement of when to prefer this over create_entry in a loop or over the personal batch_create_entries, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The remaining sentences are per-field instructions, not routing guidance.

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