sn_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the dry-run default, the need to set confirm=true to execute, and the safety cap, which is especially critical for a batch mutation tool. It does not disclose return values or error states, but the safety mechanisms are prominent and well-communicated.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded and every word earning its place. It is direct, efficient, and free of fluff, providing the essential operational facts in minimal space.

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 (batch operations, nested objects, no annotations or output schema), the description covers critical operational context: bulk nature, dry-run behavior, and safety cap. It omits return value/error details, but with no output schema, this is less critical. The schema fills parameter-level gaps, making the description reasonably complete for safe usage.

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%, and the schema itself already documents parameters like confirm (default dry-run) and limit (safety cap 10000). The description repeats these points without adding new parameter-level meaning. It does not clarify encoding of query or fields beyond what the schema already provides, so it fails to add value beyond the structured fields.

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 tool's action: 'Bulk update or delete records matching a query.' It uses a specific verb (update/delete) and resource (records), and the 'Bulk' prefix distinguishes it from single-record siblings like sn_update and sn_delete. Additional details about dry-run and safety cap reinforce its unique identity.

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 implies when to use this tool via the 'Bulk' qualifier, contrasting with single-record operations. It also provides clear execution guidance: dry-run by default, set confirm=true to execute, and a 10,000-record safety cap. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for single-record operations, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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