Team Batch Update Entries

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: atomic transaction semantics, a hard batch cap of 50, an authorship/authorization restriction, and an optimistic-concurrency mechanism via expected_version. It stops short of saying how partial failures or version conflicts are surfaced, but the safety-critical behavior is disclosed.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by limits and constraints in descending order of importance. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the core mutation semantics are covered. But for a batch mutation with zero required parameters, the description omits per-item required fields and what `auto_index` actually does, which are material to calling it correctly.

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 25%, so the description carries the burden, yet it explains just one field (expected_version). Top-level `auto_index` (what indexing side effect it triggers) and `project_number` are undocumented anywhere, and the `updates` array has no required fields in the schema with no clarification from the description that entry_id is effectively mandatory.

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 team journal entries') plus a scoping mechanism ('single transaction'), so the batch + team nature is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the personal `batch_update_entries` or single-entry `team_update_entry`, leaving sibling separation to the word 'team'.

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 real conditions for correct use (max 50 per batch, only entries you authored, use expected_version for locking), which is more than most definitions. However it never says when to prefer `team_update_entry` for a single entry or `batch_update_entries` for personal entries, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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