bulk_attach_tool_to_agents

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

Annotations only provide a title ('Bulk Attach Tool'), which doesn't cover behavioral traits like read-only/destructive hints. The description adds context about bulk operations and filtering, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral details such as whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Attaches'), permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on partial failures. With minimal annotations, the description carries more burden but provides only basic operational context.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by prerequisite guidance. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool's function and scope, the second provides essential usage context. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (bulk mutation with filtering), the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, and basic operation. With an output schema present (per context signals), return values need not be explained. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or side effects, which are important for a bulk mutation tool.

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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (tool_id, agent_name_filter, agent_tag_filter). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it mentions filter criteria generically but doesn't elaborate on syntax, format, or behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Attaches a specified tool to multiple agents') and the resource ('multiple agents'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'attach_tool' (likely single agent) and 'add_mcp_tool_to_letta' (specific to Letta). It explicitly mentions the filter criteria (name or tags) for targeting agents.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by naming alternative tools for prerequisite steps: 'Use list_agents to find agents and list_mcp_tools_by_server or upload_tool to get tool IDs.' This clearly indicates the tool should be used after identifying agents and tools via those other tools, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. single-agent attachment).

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