bulk update entries

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation: discloses pre-write validation, post-approval revalidation, sequential writes, stop-at-first-failure, per-entry completed/failed/skipped reporting, and explicitly states it is 'Not an atomic transaction' — a critical partial-failure property an agent could not infer otherwise.

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?

Six dense sentences, front-loaded with what is updated and followed by execution semantics and the approval flow. Every sentence carries information, though the confirmation/dry_run guidance is packed tightly enough to warrant a single careful read.

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 destructive, no-output-schema bulk write, the description covers everything an agent needs: entry cap, validation ordering, non-atomicity, failure reporting shape ('completed/failed/skipped'), the approval gate, and the preview escape hatch. Return-value ambiguity is resolved inline despite the missing output 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 coverage is 75%, so most parameter meaning is already structured; the description still adds real value by explaining the preview→confirmation_id→confirmed:true handshake and the PATCH-like rule that 'Omitted fields are preserved.' It does not elaborate on the entries array contents beyond media ID/type/patch, which the schema already covers.

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 with explicit scope: 'Update 1–5 existing entries, each with explicit media ID, media type and requested patch.' The '1–5' bound and 'bulk' framing separate it from single-entry siblings like update_list_entry, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 concrete workflow routing: ordinary single-entry changes execute directly, destructive/bulk changes return a preview requiring user confirmation and a repeat call with confirmation_id and confirmed:true, and dry_run previews anything. It never names sibling tools as alternatives and 'executes ordinary requested single-entry changes directly' is ambiguous against update_list_entry, which keeps it short of a 5.

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