update-many

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, confirming this is a write operation that isn't destructive. The description adds context by specifying it updates 'all documents that match the specified filter', implying bulk modification, but doesn't disclose further behavioral traits like atomicity, performance impact, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and scope, making it easy to parse and understand quickly, with zero wasted information.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks details on return values, error cases, or interaction with siblings, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior in context, though annotations help mitigate some risks.

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 (e.g., filter syntax, update operators, upsert behavior). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying bulk updates via 'all documents', which is redundant with the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 verb 'Updates' and the resource 'all documents that match the specified filter for a collection', which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update-one' (implied by 'many') but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other write operations like 'insert-many' or 'delete-many' beyond the verb, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update-one' (if available) or other write operations like 'insert-many' or 'delete-many'. It lacks context on prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, offering only a basic functional statement without usage context.

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